Re: Lazy Blob

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> So if you do have a use case, by all means please share it. If not, I
> maintain that you simply have no grounds for objection.
>

I did share a couple of use cases in my response to Ian:

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>