Re: Lazy Blob

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>> All WS usage requires a particular (application specific) implementation
>> on the server, does it not? Notwithstanding that fact, such usage will fall
>> into certain messaging patterns. I happened to give an example of two
>> possible message patterns and showed how the proposal under discussion
>> could address those patterns. It is not necessary to marry my proposal to a
>> specific sub-protocol on WS in order to provide useful functionality that
>> can be exploited by applications that use those functions.
>>
>
> If you wish to introduce a particular browser supported semantic for which
> a specific implementation on the server is required, then people should be
> able to consult a standard that tells them how they have to provide this
> implementation. Therefore it is quite necessary to marry your desire to
> extend remote blobs  to WS to a protocol, otherwise you'll have a browser
> implemented protocol that nobody knows how to implement.
>

I am not proposing a "particular browser supported semantic" for a
"specific implementation on the server". I have suggested, by way of
example, two particular patterns be supported independently of any such
implementation. I did not restrict the results to just those patterns in
case someone wishes to generalize. That is little different from the
proposed or implied XHR patterns being discussed.