W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:22:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8xwfdYjaSHtJ5O3M9Qorc88G6MVL98E6Mm9M7j5oXFcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Can you list the reasons for why you don't think we will not need any
>> >> of the types listed in the following email:
>> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0732.html
>> >
>> > I addressed those in the e-mail you replied to earlier:
>> >
>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0237.html
>>
>> This doesn't contain any arguments for why we wouldn't add any of the
>> suggested properties in the future. It just gives solutions for what to
>> do if we do need to add them. However all the suggested solutions create
>> a more complex platform than if we simply make the second argument an
>> object now.
>
> We wouldn't add timeout to the constructor because there's no benefit to
> putting that on the constructor.
>
> We wouldn't put priority on the constructor because that would be a
> per-message feature.

You'll likely want a default priority on the socket as to avoid having
to specify it on each call.

But I guess both timeout and default priority can be set after
constructing the WebSocket. However it would be syntactically nice if
you can initialize them from the constructor.

Oh well, I guess time will tell if we'll end up wanting more
constructor arguments. My money is still on that we will.

And I had still hoped to hear from other browser vendors.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 18:23:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:46 GMT