W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: [websockets] Getting WebSockets API to Last Call

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:46:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8pjZkZBGyLaTbe6uxksJVcd-o7+iq+h_4sdPa7b2Hfxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>, "art.barstow@nokia.com" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Brian Raymor <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > 12816 - Make second argument in constructor an object for future extensibility
>> I'd like to see this change made too.
>> So far there's been two counter proposals in the bug for how to deal
>> with future extensions (which I strongly suspect we'll end up having
>> to do in the future):
>> 1. Wait to open the connection until returning to the event loop which
>> delays starting the already slow network handshake. This is especially
>> a problem in Web Workers where returning to the event loop can take a
>> very long time.
>> 2. Make the second argument either be a string, a array of strings, or
>> a object. This is messy both from a user perspective and from an
>> implementation perspective.
> This really seems to me like a premature optimisation. We shouldn't be
> fixing problems we don't already have, _especially_ if doing so
> complicates the platform (as it does here).

On the other hand, we should do things now that are likely to create a
more complicated or inconsistent platform in the future.

It's a judgement call. I think we're just making different judgements
on how likely it is that we'll need to extend this in the future.

/  Jonas
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 23:47:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:22 UTC