<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Drew Wilson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:atwilson@google.com">atwilson@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="it">On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:11 PM, James Robinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jamesr@google.com" target="_blank">jamesr@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div>
<div><br></div><div>Forcing applications to build their own send/ack functionality would be pretty tragic considering that WebSockets are built on top of TCP.</div><div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>- James</div></font></blockquote>
<div><br></div></div><div>Every time I've written a response/reply protocol on TCP I've needed to put in my own acks - how else do you know your message has been delivered to the remote app layer? </div><div></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This seems especially true given that WebSocket connections may be proxied.</div><div><br></div><div>-Darin</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>
One could argue that WebSockets should do this for you, but I like leaving this up to the app as it gives them more flexibility.</div><div><br></div><div>-atw </div></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>