[whatwg] Redirects and draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol

Jeremy Orlow jorlow at chromium.org
Fri Aug 14 16:14:17 PDT 2009

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
> >
> > I feel like redirects add unnecessary complexity.
> >
> > We're already asking application developers to handle ACKing, keep
> > alives, multi-plexing, connection limiting, authentication, etc
> > themselves.  To me, it doesn't seem like much of an additional burden to
> > ask them to handle redirects.  And by keeping the spec simple, I think
> > we'll increase the chances of quick adoption by UAs, which will speed up
> > the adoption by web apps, which will give us feedback on what features
> > web developers actually want much quicker.
> The use case for redirects is if Google (say) provides a WebSocket service
> that lots of sites around the Web uses, and then Google wants to move the
> service to another host, without transparent redirects, all the pages
> using the service will break until they can be updated, whereas with
> redirects, we can just redirect and be done with it.

Or the protocol Google (or anyone else) creates to transport the data can
support this.  If an application has to deal with ACKs, it's only a small
jump to insist it also handles the initial negotiation (authentication,
redirects, etc) itself.

This is why I think it's better to not have anything at all rather than have
something that's half-baked.  I whole-heartedly agree that these features
should be in v2.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090814/c3e5ab7f/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list