- From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 01:08:37 -0800
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 16 January 2015 09:09:04 UTC
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > 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. > SSE also assumes long-polling, to avoid the buffering problem, IIRC. > 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. > We've created an informal survey doc (no nomenclature) on the gaps of HTTP and WebSocket protocols ... http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg10580.html ... Comments welcome. > 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 Friday, 16 January 2015 09:09:04 UTC