Re: [hybi] Is there a traffic jam?

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

Ian Hickson wrote:
 > A simple protocol doesn't preclude more complex APIs, or multiplexing.


Ian,

Of course arbitrarily complex protocols can be tunnelled over
websocket.

But we can already tunnel arbitrary protocols over HTTP, so if
the ability to transport arbitrary protocols is sufficient, then
we are already there and nothing new is needed.

The question is - can we do something better than tunnelling
over HTTP.

To be frank, I'd actually rather use HTTP has a basis
than websocket.    The websocket wire protocol appears to
have focused on byte squeezing at the expense of meta data
and extensibility.

Byte-squeezing is simply not a pain point that I'm
experiencing while deploying bidirection webapplications.
Even the latency benefits of websocket are more perceived
benefits than any measurable improvement in average latency.

The pain points I'm having deploying bidirectional webapplications
are mostly about sharing connections:

  1) How to stop a browser sharing a connection by queuing
     normal requests behind long polled requests.
  2) How to share limited connections between
     widgets/frames/tabs/windows.
  3) How to limit the growth of connections on the server.


Websocket potentially helps with #1, but only if upgraded connections
are excluded from connection accounting (obvious to do, but not
sure if that is specified anywhere?).

Websocket doesn't help with #2 and #3 at all.  In fact it probably
makes it worse.  While individual connections are bidirectional, each
widgets will be able to each initiate their own websocket connection to
their own backend handling.  So the end result is likely to be a lot
more unshared connection.


cheers