- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:20:41 -0700
Hi Greg, On Aug 7, 2009, at 10:07 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote: > > Again this is valuable feedback. > > That's three -0' or -1's on the look-a-like-HTTP approach. > > I'll ponder what sort of simplifications could be made > if the HTTP style is dropped. I'm not sure the HTTP-style framing is necessarily a minus, it's just not much of a plus. I think the complexity cost is from the number of features added. I think a possible fruitful approach might be: - Review what features BWTP adds. - Pare down to just the most essential ones that provide a lot of benefit at the protocol level relative to doing them at the application level. - Leave enough extensibility that other useful protocol-level features can be added in a future version. I'm concerned about the 1.0 version of the protocol, whatever it may be, being too complex. The downsides of complexity are: (a) longer time-to-market for the core functionality; (b) likely worse interoperability in the initial implementations; (c) more risk of security bugs. On the other hand, I would also be concerned about deploying something that didn't have an elegant path to future extension. I intend to look over the protocol details and I will encourage the other folks doing implementation or design work on WebKit's WebSocket to give it a look. Then hopefully I can add a more concrete proposal. I tentatively agree with Jonas that in-protocol multiplexing sounds like one of the most valuable additional features, as compared to WebSocket Protocol. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 23:20:41 UTC