Re: [hybi] Frame size

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Thomson, Martin
> <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote:
>   
>>  - Sub-protocol needed if messages are larger than the max frame.
>>     
>
> One other note from Ireland is that when httpd and tomcat devs talked
> about small frame sizes, most people thought that frame sizes in this
> range would be artificially limiting - a few folks talked about Comet
> apps they've seen transferring large XML files.  Silly perhaps, but
> that's what the app writers did...trying to get them to change is
> pointless.
>
> IMO, going to 32 bits or even 64 bits simply isn't that much of a
> difference - and may actually be easier if it means removing a
> sub-protocol or extension - the phrase "premature optimization" was
> bandied about in keeping the frame size arbitrarily low.  =)
>
> Anyway, if we flesh out a way up-front to do "jumbo" frames (via an
> extension), I think that'd be fine, but I'd be leery of throwing too
> much into extensions.
>   
Not exactly, because if you want large frames, you need chunking. 
Changing the frame size from 2 octets to 4 octets is not sufficient to 
handle large frames.

The two viable options to handle large frames are putting chunking into 
the WebSockets protocol (like HTTP), or punting to the sub-protocol as 
Martin suggested.

-- Scott
> Other than that caveat, I'm okay with what you propose.
>
> ...snip...
>   
>> IF used for UTF-8 AND implementer counts characters instead of octets THEN framing doesn't work.  (One solution to this problem is to start a frame with a known sequence of octets, so that this can be detected.  Another "solution" is to not worry about it.)
>>     
>
> +1 to "not worry about it".  -- justin
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>
>
>   