- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:27:51 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > > I did share a couple of use cases in my response to Ian: > > > I will let Robin and Jungkee reply to the more general use case > > requirements. As far as WS is concerned, I don't see any impact of > > this thread on the WS API or WSP specs, its really simply an > > application of WS/WSP to "remote/lazy blobs". > > > > Clearly, there are many high level use cases that involve a repetitive > > send/response message paradigm, which can certainly be implemented > > with XHR, but some application authors would prefer using WS for > > various efficiency reasons. My suggestion is essentially: if we are > > going to define a remote blob bound to an XHR source for a one-shot > > send-response, then perhaps we should define a remote blob bound to a > > WS source for multiple send-response pairs. For example, a symmetric > > presence protocol or IM protocol would typically fall into this usage > > category. > > > > Using remote blobs for either the send or response data (or both) > > would be useful for certain architectures and provide more deployment > > flexibility and perhaps greater efficiencies. Those are still not use cases, for the record. I tried explaining what a use case was here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0302.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0288.html -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 17:28:14 UTC