Re: [hybi] Is there a traffic jam?

* 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.

Lightweight WebSocket proxies exist (check out the dez project), and are
trivial to deploy.

For those people (imho the majority), what's most important is that
their preferred CGI-like framework supports the new protocols and
doesn't change the way they program too much.

The fact is, the people who want CGI-like interactions already have plenty
of tools that perfectly fit their use-case, and they don't need another one.
We're all here because the current toolset does not sufficiently address our
needs. We don't have to create something incompatible with existing
frameworks, but the very nature of CGI is in diametric opposition to the
concept of a streaming protocol. It's clear that people working in CGI-like
frameworks will _have_ to change the way they program, because they will be
writing applications that are fundamentally different.

Note that different != harder. Anyone in the world can write a CGI script
because anyone in the world can type "cgi script" into google and get a
thousand code snippets to paste in. Writing actual network applications is a
big secret only because no one's writing the tutorials. (We should start).

Mario Balibrera

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@defuze.org> wrote:

> Jamie Lokier a écrit :
>
>> Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The conversation has been worthwhile (at least for me).  I'm
>>>> moving away from my "let's not pick winners" advocacy towards
>>>> a base protocol that does support sharing and multiplexing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm still not convinced about the idea of a base protocol myself.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> WebSockets is a base protocol.
>>
>> Are you advocating raw TCP?
>>
>>
> I am yes.
>
> - Sylvain
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>