Re: [hybi] deflate-stream and masking

[David Endicott <[e-mail]>]

My reading and my concern (and the de-lurking to comment) is that it seems
its possible the client might request it, get refused and close the
connection instead of continuing.

But, of course, browsers would never do anything like that to influence
protocol implementations, would they?


On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM, John Tamplin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM, David Endicott <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>> Agreed.   The vast majority of (unencrypted, unmasked, unmangled) content
>> will benefit from compression.   That is a truth I cannot debate.
>>
>> My use cases will not.    My "slowness" concern is latency, not
>> throughput.   My traffic will be many small messages and arrives at the WS
>> layer already encrypted, so compression doesn't work for me to any great
>> extent.   The turn-around latency of XHR is my biggest concern.   The HTTP
>> request/response cycle is my problem.   WS solves my latency concerns, and
>> beyond that I'd like it to just stay out of my way.
>>
>> I acknowledge that other peoples needs will differ from mine.   I'm just
>> lazy enough to want to avoid doing work I don't need.
>>
>
> Then even if the w3c position that all clients request deflate-stream
> stands, then your server is free to refuse that extension.  Likewise if
> deflate-frame is requested.
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>