[whatwg] <eventsource>/RemoteEventSource wierdness
kornel at geekhood.net
Wed Feb 18 02:49:08 PST 2009
On 18 Feb 2009, at 06:53, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> This could also replace the IMHO awkward <eventsource> element. I
> don't understand the value of having this element at all. It seems to
> me that if the only way you can use an API is through script, then
> making the API into an element is adding extra complexity to the HTML
> language for little to no gain.
I agree with that one. I don't see any reason why sources need to be
declared in HTML (sources are site-specific and useful only with JS
enabled, so non-JS clients, bots, etc. don't need to know about them).
> Finally, I do question the need for this API at all.
I like the concept and find it useful. I think existence of Comet
is a proof that such feature is desired, even without support for SMS.
Implementation of Comet via XHR is tricky, especially robust error
handling is difficult. JS libraries can't have best implementation of
event streams, because JS doesn't have enough control over network
connections (e.g. can't bypass proxy if it doesn't handle long-lived
connections well). Native browser implementations can excel here.
One key feature that IMHO is needed in this area is sharing of events
between pages/windows - e.g. page with stock ticker doesn't need
separate stream for every page in every window. One permanent
connection shared between windows and kept alive between page reloads
would be sufficient, and would save both client and server resources
and wouldn't have problems with HTTP/1.1 connections limit.
1. I think that such feature is needed and event source should be kept
in some form.
2. I wouldn't mind if event source API was redesigned, made JS-only
(without DOM), moved to separate specification or merged with XHR/web
3. Connection sharing is needed to make it a killer feature.
More information about the whatwg