Re: Lazy Blob

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> 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


I'll leave the translation of "IM protocol" to "user facing use case" as
homework for the reader. It is trivial. My intent is to show a use case
where one would use a persistent connection and a series of send/response
messages that easily maps to WS. Instant Messaging is such a use case.