IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 19 April 2010 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC9B3A67CC for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.169, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SlhMEzGa95MO for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F9E63A69A2 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2010 09:20:16 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.116]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp045) with SMTP; 19 Apr 2010 11:20:16 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18hlSJab8Ah7evfP33AFry40sg0tauJM+n8ln/xP2 dazMG6zbB0DK8F
Message-ID: <4BCC204D.30004@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:20:13 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
References: <h2w5c902b9e1004152345j992b815bz5f8d38f06a19181a@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004160701250.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BC860FD.8080007@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004161952530.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BC96A0D.4080904@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004180246380.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCAB2C1.2000404@webtide.com> <B9DC25B0-CD21-44E7-BD9B-06D0C9440933@apple.com> <4BCB7829.9010204@caucho.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004182349240.751@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC0A07.9030003@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190753510.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BCC111C.90707@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190837570.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004190837570.23507@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.67000000000000004
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:21:09 -0000

On 19.04.2010 10:48, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> There are many many implementations of HTTP. Some fast, some not so.
>> Some complete, some not so.
>
> I think we can get orders of magnitude more complete implementations of
> Web Sockets than of HTTP if we keep the protocol trivial.

Yes. That's a given. Make it less complex, and it will be easier to 
completely implement.

>> The main reason we see two server implementations rule the market isn't
>> necessarily because of protocol complexity, but because one of them
>> ships with a popular server platform, and the other one is free and
>> "good enough" for almost everything.
>
> That is one possibility. I do not personally think it is the real reason.
> Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to test these hypotheses.

OK. So let's get back to on-topic discussions.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email