- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:22:29 -0700
- 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 UTC