Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Tue, 18 May 2010 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.com>
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 39C6828C0D8 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.278, BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 4dtFi5WqDJ0O for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B2C3A695B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwb39 with SMTP id 39so10521wwb.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.181.195 with SMTP id l45mr4094507wem.156.1274185915691; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.52.9 with HTTP; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100518121245.GR20356@shareable.org>
References: <068.d07026741c6694cd80652d2a7d34f236@tools.ietf.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005170918310.25609@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BF11920.2080307@webtide.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005171039050.25609@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <4BF12FF1.2020101@webtide.com> <15307.1274106895.116423@Sputnik> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005172259030.22838@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <20100518003753.GP20356@shareable.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005180229430.22838@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <20100518121245.GR20356@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:31:55 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTiniCjBwm5T59as8jByM5xDhPMrea-GqZFpWPAVS@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
To: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance
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: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:33:16 -0000

On 18 May 2010 14:12, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> 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.

regards