Re: [hybi] Extensibility mechanisms?

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 19.04.2010 17:22, Roberto Peon wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 19.04.2010 10:48, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>             There are many many implementations of HTTP. Some fast, some
>             not so.
>             Some complete, some not so.
>
>
>         I think we can get orders of magnitude more complete
>         implementations of
>         Web Sockets than of HTTP if we keep the protocol trivial.
>
>
>     Yes. That's a given. Make it less complex, and it will be easier to
>     completely implement.
>
>
> This isn't true! Make it (the protocol) less complex and it will be easy
> to implement something which *conforms to the spec*, but not necessarily
> something which scales and is robust, reliable, and scalable in the face
> of all the stuff that happens out there.

Yes, I agree with that. So the "complexity of implementing the protocol 
completely" isn't the only aspect we should consider.

> The latter part is what really worries me. We really need to be sure
> that the protocol that we create allows for an implementation of a
> server to do these things. If the (hopefully small) added complexity is
> too much for the amateur programmer, then they should use the API level.
> If we don't focus on these things, we'll vastly increase the cost of
> infrastructure while decreasing reliability. I don't see that as a
> positive tradeoff.
> -=R
> ...

Indeed.

Best regards, Julian