Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> My own view: I think we need to support both lightweight "amateur" 
>> deployments and large-scale deployments involving complex 
>> infrastructure.
[...]

> I completely agree with the above.

Great!  so can we rewind this thread.

So as you don't preclude support for large-scale
deployments with complex infrastructure, my objection
to your proposed #3 extension can't be dismissed on
the grounds that your main reason for starting this
effort was to support amateur programmers.

You proposed 3 extension types.  I agree with 1 & 2,
but #3 was:

> > 3. Opt-in experimental non-standard features implemented by Web browsers
> >    and servers involved with the experiment.
> >    This would use the same mechanism as #2, but would be limited to
> >    experimental work, not widely deployed. For example, Firefox could
> >    define a field that, when used by both client and server, switches the
> >    connection from using the Web Socket framing to using an entirely
> >    different framing based on HTTP chunking or BWTP or BEEP or something.


I believe that large scale deployments with complex
infrastructure will have significant problems if
a HTTP connection that has been upgraded to
websocket is suddenly found to be carrying BEEP
framing.

If you want to send BEEP over a HTTP connection,
then you should upgrade to BEEP, not websocket.


regards