3 ms·
You obviously disagree, but JMAP made exactly the right choice: A simple, pull based protocol, with a side-channel for notifications. It's not clear why anyone
by miracle2k 8y ago
You obviously disagree, but JMAP made exactly the right choice: A simple, pull based protocol, with a side-channel for notifications. It's not clear why anyone would want a complex websockets-based monstrosity when the simple approach solves the problem perfectly.
I am not at all convinced that JMAP will succeed, I think it's along shot, but it's failure will not be because of the choice of HTTP.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y agoWhat exactly is the point of simply ignoring what I wrote and making unsubstantiated assertions that contradict what I wrote? First, it's based on HTTP, so it's obviously not simple. Then, it obviously doesn't solve the problem perfectly if it cannot do the job without an additional side channel (which still doesn't solve the problem perfectly as the side channel obviously is slower and reduces reliability). And what is possibly the monstrosity with websockets, if not the fact that it is kinda-sorta using HTTP for something it wasn't built for ... which you think is best avoided by using HTTP for something it wasn't built for? And no, I certainly don't want to use websockets, just as I don't want to use any of the other monstrosities that make up "email in a browser". But the great thing about sensible protocols for the purpose, which could work over websockets, is that you can simply drop all that crap and run them over TCP (with TLS in between, preferably).