3 ms·
It's as I feared: What was previously a nearly-compatible-with-HTTP, dead-simple protocol, looks to have become confusingly, unnecessarily complex. Like XMPP.
by mcav 16y ago
It's as I feared: What was previously a nearly-compatible-with-HTTP, dead-simple protocol, looks to have become confusingly, unnecessarily complex. Like XMPP.
It will catch on because it's all we've got, but we're going to shove yet another mediocre protocol onto the stack of protocols servers need to speak in addition to HTTP.
The people working on this have spent time understanding the problem domain better than I have. But I really hope they've thought this protocol through. Because we'll be stuck with it for a long time.
- wvenable 16y agoA lot of bad protocols exist because people didn't think it through enough and a lot of bad protocols exist because people thought it through too much. The protocol is a bit more readable here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-76 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol-... The security protocol does seem a little strange: putting numbers into the fields interspersed with random characters and spaces, taking the numbers and dividing them by the number of space characters, and using 2 fields to make harder. There's a lot of dancing here to ensure that the protocol is implemented correctly.
- metajack 16y agoThe IETF is an open forum where anyone can participate. If you want your voice heard, join the mailing list and make your suggestions. Also, I don't appreciate this mindless bashing on XMPP. All IETF protocols are encouraged (required?) to be fairly secure, which entails things like TLS and SASL. Once you get beyond that, XMPP is not very complex at all. If you have a specific complaint, I'd love to hear it. The XSF is basically as open as the IETF and we're always interested in feedback, but we'd appreciate it if it was constructive.