Re: [hybi] Is there a traffic jam?

Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org> Tue, 14 April 2009 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sh@defuze.org>
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 C0C343A67AA for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 qvi48UFw5xDX for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.webfaction.com (mail1.webfaction.com [67.15.2.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DFC3A694D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [82.229.61.197] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.webfaction.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n3EAdJIt023839; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:39:20 -0500
Message-ID: <49E467D6.4060008@defuze.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:39:18 +0200
From: Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
References: <03BCE29D-7AA5-4128-9F61-446E0229479A@lindenlab.com> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105A0C46E@AHQEX1.andrew.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904132352430.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105A0C476@AHQEX1.andrew.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0904140002360.10339@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <49E3D66C.5060002@webtide.com> <49E3D731.30305@mozilla.com> <79ea848f0904131727w5d4bc0d8kc9914d26080a01fc@mail.gmail.com> <49E3DB47.5060801@webtide.com> <49E428DD.3070803@defuze.org> <op.usc9z5al64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local> <54928.193.253.216.132.1239703496.squirrel@mail1.webfaction.com> <op.usdgani764w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
In-Reply-To: <op.usdgani764w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Is there a traffic jam?
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, 14 Apr 2009 10:38:10 -0000

>> From the browser's perspective, I can see why this is so
>> simple when I go through the WS specification but from a server's
>> perspective this means adding another layer which means:
>>
>> * Having to understand for each protocol (XMPP, IMAP, etc.) the best way
>> to channel said protocols into the WS constraints.
>> * Having to gauge how to scale such infrastructure.
>
> They would need to fit similar constraints at least if they were to be 
> exposed to JavaScript.

Would it? If there was direct access to raw TCP sockets there would be 
no requirements for a change in infrastructure, it would only mean 
client libs have to be written for each supported protocol, like in any 
other language.

>>> The closest to raw TCP socket access we can offer is something that 
>>> looks like Web Sockets.
>>
>> I find that seriously limitating.
>
> It is, but there does not seem to be a better way either.

Since I have no real knowledge of the browsers' design constraints, I 
can't really offer alternatives.

- Sylvain