W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2013

[whatwg] Flow Control on Websockets

From: Michael Meier <mm@sigsegv.ch>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:29:42 +0200
Message-ID: <52601076.7030801@sigsegv.ch>
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Hey

This message is going to be a slight rewording and generalization of a 
question I asked yesterday on Stack Overflow. The SO question is here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19414277/can-i-have-flow-control-on-my-websockets

Suppose I have a Websocket server and a WS client connected to it. The 
client is a JS script in a browser offering the standard WS API. The 
server produces data at a rate r1 and sends it to the client, which is 
able to meaningfully process data at a rate of r2, where r1 > r2.

The JS script registers an onmessage handler and is called every time 
the browser receives a message from the WS. Even if the JS script is 
still busy processing the received message, say over a chain of 
asynchronous calls, the browser might receive the next message and call 
onmessage again. For the script, there are two options to proceed. The 
first option is to drop data. This might not be possible in all 
applications and is also a shame, since the data has already been 
transported over the network. The second option is to buffer the data. 
This is not a real option, though, since it will buffer an ever 
increasing amount of data because r1 > r2.

If the JS script had a mechanism to tell the browser not to read further 
data from the TCP socket underlying the WS, TCP backpressure would 
naturally build up to the server.

On the sending side of the browser, flow control seems to be possible by 
using the bufferedAmount attribute to decide when to pause and resume 
sending of data.


Why is there such an assymetry between sending an receiving? Is it 
possible to have flow control on the receiving side without resorting to 
application level handshakes?*


Cheers,
Michael

* Which would reimplement large parts of TCP. Which is a shame to do 
when already running on a TCP connection and also a Bad Idea(TM).
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 16:30:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:12 UTC