<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Perry Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pedzsan@gmail.com">pedzsan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">>>> [[<br>
>>> Note: There is no limit to the number of established WebSocket connections<br>
>>> a user agent can have with a single remote host. Servers can refuse to<br>
>>> connect users with an excessive number of connections, or disconnect<br>
>>> resource-hogging users when suffering high load.<br>
>>> ]]<br>
>>>I don't think this is an area for the spec. The open must be allowed to fail if something goes wrong. The OS might reject it and the browser might reject it too. Aside from that, I don't think the spec should dictate what to do here.</div>
<br>
A nice UA, I think, would monitor a particular tab or browsing context for being out of control. This might be opening an infinite number of sockets or running infinite threads to bog the user's system down (or it might be because I forgot a semicolon :-). There are countless ways for nasty javascript to upset the user. A nice UA from a nice group would learn these new ways and adapt to them over time. When detected, the UA could ask the user if they want this mayhem to continue or not. I think rampant socket abuse is just one of countless places nasty javascript is going to exploit the user. I don't see how the spec can foresee all of them nor should a "complaint UA" be required to detect all of them.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div> I think simply saying that a user agent may restrict the number of connections like the server might is sufficient. As written, it implies the number is actually unlimited.</div></div><br>
-- <br>John A. Tamplin<br>Software Engineer (GWT), Google<br>