Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

[Jamie Lokier <[e-mail]>]

Roberto Peon wrote:
> 
>    On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Greg Wilkins <[1][e-mail]>
>    wrote:
> 
>    On 18 May 2010 14:12, Jamie Lokier <[2][e-mail]> wrote:
>    > I'm arguing that the second object should be able to reuse the
>    > connection resulting from the first one's failure to negotiate on
>    the
>    > same port
> 
>      Exactly!
>      If the handshake is HTTP compliant, then the connection for a
>      websocket handshake could be taken from the existing pool of
>      idle connections to a host.  That would save the time needed to
>      establish the connection.
>      If the handshake is HTTP compliant, then a rejected websocket
>      handshake could put the connection back into the idle pool to be
>      available for subsequent handshakes or XHRs.
>      If the handshake is not HTTP compliant, then the connection
>      needs to be created on every handshake and disposed as
>      untrusted after every rejection.
> 
>    Which, to use the technical phrase, sucks.

What do you mean?  I don't understand your point at all.

Do you mean that the current design preventing reuse sucks, or that
doing reuse would suck (even though you wouldn't have to if you didn't
want to)?

-- Jamie