On 15 January 2015 at 23:06, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: > You’re correct – that’s more equivalent. But I’ve seen WebSockets used in > the same way, even though it has broader capabilities. True, The problem with server sent events is that there is no guarantee that an intermediary will forward the content in chunks. A caching proxy might try to cache the entire response. So websocket is preferable if it is able to connect. Never really understood why W3C went for two such similar mechanisms in HTML5 when websockets can do the job of both. cheers -- Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> @ Webtide - *an Intalio subsidiary* http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 22:23:22 UTC