On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Alexey Proskuryakov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ap@webkit.org">ap@webkit.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
28.07.2009, в 16:40, Ian Hickson написал(а):<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
3) A Web Sockets server cannot respond with a redirect to another URL.<br>
I'm not sure if the intention is to leave this to implementations, or to<br>
add in Web Sockets v2, but it definitely looks like an important feature<br>
to me, maybe something that needs to be in v1.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
What's the use case? Why does this need to be at the connection layer<br>
rather than the application layer? (Why would we need this, when TCP<br>
doesn't have it? Would you also need "redirect"-like functonality in IRC,<br>
IMAP, SSH, and other such protocols?)<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Just like with HTTP, redirects will make it possible to move services to a different location. I guess the use cases are exactly the same that tell us that we should allow redirects with cross-site XMLHttpRequest (but I can't enumerate those).<br>
<br>
Other protocols do not get accessed from Web pages, so transparent redirect support is not needed to keep web apps working after services they use move. The Web has redirects all over the place, and WebSocket has "Web" in its name :)<br>
<br>
Finally, since it's likely that WebSocket servers will share ports with HTTP ones, one can expect that returning a 307 for all requests (including those with Upgrade: WebSocket) will be enough to preserve application functionality.<br>
<br>
Redirects surely add a lot of complexity though.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>They can be implemented at the application layer though, right? I suppose this does add complexity, but it doesn't seem like it'd add _that_ much. Especially if you're already doing authentication at the application level as well.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I definitely agree these are good items for v2, but I think what's already in the spec is a good start.</div></div>