Re: Websockets

Martin Atkins wrote:
> On 09/17/2012 11:38 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Martin Atkins wrote:
>>> On 09/17/2012 07:07 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>>>> Has anyone else looked into using Websockets for server-to-server
>>>> distribution of activities?
>>>>
>>>> Seems like it could be very efficient.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm curious to hear what advantages you consider Websockets to have
>>> over tranditional sockets. Aside from the explicit message framing, is
>>> there any functional difference beyond a bare TCP socket?
>>
>> Ummm... how would you open a raw TCP socket from JavaScript? (I'd really
>> like to be able to, and the original websocket spec allowed it, but that
>> functionality went away somewhere down the line.)
>>
>
> This discussion is about server-to-server communication, so opening a 
> TCP socket shouldn't be a problem regardless of implementation language.

Ooops.. my bad, must not have had enough coffee this morning.

Re. your question: I'd comment that there are an awful lot of protocols 
that run on top of TCP - each optimized to a different activity.  So, 
when the OP asks "Has anyone else looked into using Websockets for 
server-to-server distribution of activities?"  My reaction would be 
"what kind of activities?" and "how does websockets compare to mature 
protocols used for those functions?".

Miles Fidelman


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 19:26:03 UTC