W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Lazy Blob

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:39:44 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+foZdACUgpcP4MMZzn10cy-+YuWCKeibzMFmtm=wjrCow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >
> > Are you asking for use cases for a remote/lazy blob in general? i.e., as
> > would apply to the proposed XHR usage and any other underlying supported
> > data source? or are you asking about high level use cases that are
> > particular to a WS binding but not an XHR binding?
>
> Both would be useful, but my primary concern is Web Sockets, since I edit
> that spec. Before I can consider proposals that affect Web Sockets, I need
> to know what use case it is we're trying to address.
>

I will let Robin and Jungkee reply to the more general use case
requirements. As far as WS is concerned, I don't see any impact of this
thread on the WS API or WSP specs, its really simply an application of
WS/WSP to "remote/lazy blobs".

Clearly, there are many high level use cases that involve a repetitive
send/response message paradigm, which can certainly be implemented with
XHR, but some application authors would prefer using WS for various
efficiency reasons. My suggestion is essentially: if we are going to define
a remote blob bound to an XHR source for a one-shot send-response, then
perhaps we should define a remote blob bound to a WS source for multiple
send-response pairs. For example, a symmetric presence protocol or IM
protocol would typically fall into this usage category.

Using remote blobs for either the send or response data (or both) would be
useful for certain architectures and provide more deployment flexibility
and perhaps greater efficiencies.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 17:40:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT