Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2010/04/18 11:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry but despite your original aims, enabling amateur programmers
>> to write protocols that avoid the need for vendor supplied
>> infrastructure is not the prime reason this WG has come into existence.
>
> If that isn't a goal for this working group, then that's fine, but it
> means I'm in the wrong group.

If what Greg wrote means that "you won't be able to deploy web sockets 
unless you pay one of these vendors a lot of money", then I clearly 
would disagree. But I sincerely hope that's not what Greg meant.

But I think there's a middle ground between "the protocol has to be 
really easy to implement for an amateur programmer in a weekend" and 
"the protocol needs heavy (and expensive) vendor support to be feasible".

In my view, at the low end, the amateurs will use the web sockets API on 
the client side, and should use a web sockets API (e.g. a Perl package, 
a Ruby gem, or some such) on the server side. There is a very important 
need to make it easy for 'amateurs' to use web sockets, but that doesn't 
mean that it has to be easy for them to implement a web sockets API. It 
is enough if an experienced programmer can create and implement a 
(server-side) API in a few days. Amateurs are much better at copy-pasting
   use 'webservice'; # Perl
or
   require 'webservice' # Ruby
than at counting characters or bytes.

Regards,   Martin.


-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[e-mail]