Re: #250 / #251 (connect bodies)

On 29/10/2010, at 4:40 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:13:06AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 29/10/2010, at 7:23 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>> Are you suggesting to be HTTP compliant but to just use a different port ?
>>> If so, then I agree that we can easily reuse existing infrastructure without
>>> implying risks on existing shared hosting environments. But it's not clear
>>> to me that it is what you're talking about. My understanding is that you
>>> want to get rid of the HTTP compatibility which at the same time would
>>> require to reinvent all the components to offer the features above.
>>> I think that it is a solution which has never been suggested on the hybi WG
>>> to use HTTP over a different port. Either it was HTTP on same port with
>>> horrible tricks, or something very different and incompatible on a dedicated
>>> port. The more I think about it, the more I like the principle of HTTP over
>>> another port !
>> If the request-line doesn't have HTTP/ in it, I don't care what it does on another port... however, if I were actually designing WebSockets to be a successful protocol, I don't know that I'd want to be constrained to HTTP syntax, given that it's not getting much benefit from doing so. The concepts that you're interested in can be reused without dragging along all of the baggage.
> But still they need to be reinvented for the new protocol, and components to
> be redevelopped. Right now, HTTP-compatible infrastructure offers all of that
> for free. Host, URI and cookies are used a lot along the chain to direct the
> client's connection to the proper component of the proper server of the proper
> farm, and all of that already exists.

It's not free, as evidenced by the hoops that are being jumped through to try to make sure that it isn't treated like HTTP.


Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 05:41:48 UTC