Re: [hybi] first draft of WS mux extension

["Len Holgate" <[e-mail]>]

No, you'd just use the existing framing in the base protocol and all
fragments would have the FIN bit set. Thus any channel can interleave
without changing any rules from the base protocol. You'd then have a single
FIN bit in the extension data, before the channel id, which acts as the fin
bit for this channel's data.

Your example in 7 becomes

81 06 [FIN BIT HERE = 0]01 "Hello" 81 04 [FIN BIT HERE = 1]02 "bye" 81 07
[FIN BIT HERE = 1]01 " world"

Len 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Tamplin [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 24 October 2011 08:53
> To: Len Holgate
> Cc: Hybi
> Subject: Re: [hybi] first draft of WS mux extension
> 
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Len Holgate 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	This seems nice and clean and pretty easy to implement.
> 	
> 	Have you considered removing the "relaxation" of the 
> fragmented frame rules
> 	from the base protocol (ie the changes that permit the 
> example shown in 7).
> 	
> 	I would have thought that if all fragments on mux 
> channels were sent as
> 	complete messages you could include the actual 
> message's fin bit in the
> 	extension data of the mux frame and so not change the 
> base protocol at all.
> 	This would mean that mux could be implemented on 
> existing websocket
> 	implementations without changing the underlying 
> implementation at all. The
> 	layer "above" could deal with all aspects of the muxing.
> 	
> 
> 
> That would require an additional framing layer to allow that, 
> and objections to that is what led to the support in the base 
> spec allowing extensions to define interleaving behavior. 
> 
> -- 
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
> 
>