Re: [hybi] Multiplexing in WebSocket (Was: HyBi Design Space)

[Ian Hickson <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) wrote:
>
> the problem i have with doing addressing for multiplexing channels on a 
> single connection in the application layer is that it effectively 
> disallows intermediaries from reasoning about distinct messages on 
> distinct channels. i do agree that doing multiplexing in the application 
> layer is much more flexible and for many deployments "this is a good 
> thing." does it make sense to have a multiplexing option in the protocol 
> that can be used by people who want their intermediaries to understand 
> this sort of thing, but not make it mandatory? that way i could hire 
> someone to hack squid to recognize and cache multiplexed reverse 
> responses and people who want to do something more flexible at the app 
> layer can still do it.

I don't understand the use case wherein one would ever want caching at the 
Web Socket layer. Could you expand on this?

If there are specific application level protocols layered on top of Web 
Socket that could benefit from caching, then nothing stops intermediaries 
from understanding that sub-protocol, including any multiplexing it might 
itself support.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'