- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:21:19 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Oct 23, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > I also continue to miss actual developer demand for server sent > events. Seems like it doesn't add a lot of sugar over simply using > XMLHttpRequest and progress events. But again, I'm fine with > publishing a new WD. Besides syntactic sugar, here are some advantages over using XHR and progress events (or readystatechange events, which some client-side JS libraries use today): - Does not force the full event stream to be stored in memory until the connection is closed (XHR's responseText effectively forces this). This is the biggest one. A long event stream shouldn't take progressively more memory. - Does not force you to reparse the event stream each time new data comes in (XHR + progress events doesn't have an easy way to get just the new data chunk). - Dealing with message boundaries instead of packet boundaries (or arbitrary batching-within-the-network-layer boundaries) is way more convenient and likely more efficient to a degree that I think goes beyond mere syntactic sugar. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 23 October 2009 22:21:55 UTC