6 ms·

Yet another reason Chrome's rolling release auto updates are glorious. (When the protocol is fixed, Chrome users will all have it within a day or two; Firefox u

Yet another reason Chrome's rolling release auto updates are glorious. (When the protocol is fixed, Chrome users will all have it within a day or two; Firefox users, not so much) Additionally: Nochum's comment is concerning, if accurate: >This is gonna suck since the feature detection will be totally thrown off. >E.g.: >if (WebSocket in window) > ...

axod 16y ago
Relying on feature detection alone for WebSocket is a big mistake though. Websocket can fail for a number of reasons - proxies, stupid ISPs that interfere with HTTP traffic etc. In Mibbit, the code is something like this: if(WebSocket in window) { tryWebsocket(); window.setTimeout(function() { if (nothingHappened()) useComet() }, 5*1000); } else { useComet(); } Where comet in this case is keep alive long polling XHR.
- taitems 16y ago
  That's an interesting way of managing timeouts. Is the 5*1000 intended to just be a more readable way of specifying seconds?
  - mcav 16y ago
    I assume so. I do the same thing.
  - axod 16y ago
    Closure compiles it down to 5000 or 5E3 or whatever is smallest in my build process, so all the browser sees is '5e3'. I find 5*1000 most readable in my source code though.
- catechu 16y ago
  How can you check if nothing happened?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    By changing some global variable in the callback and checking if it has changed in 'somethinghappened' (which only gets called after 5 seconds, giving the callback time enough to get called).
- bradgessler 16y ago
  Libraries like Socket.IO will detect if the connection can be made or not... so this point is moot. Feature detection first, connection detection second, then start degrading the transport until all options are exhausted.
  - axod 16y ago
    Sure. I was just explaining for those who prefer to write things like this themselves.
ergo98 16y ago
Yet another reason Chrome's rolling release auto updates are glorious. I like Chrome's silent updates, but the only real difference between it and Firefox is that Firefox informs the user that the update is being applied. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Chrome updates much more frequently and I think you discount the amount that users ignore the update warnings.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Of course, the people who know what Chrome is are not the people that ignore the warnings.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - drivebyacct2 16y ago
      Couldn't disagree more. You'd be shocked at the number of CE/CS majors that ignore Firefox updates and complain about them. My mom uses Chrome on my parents' laptop and my dad uses Firefox. Guess which one is out of date :).
  - chime 16y ago
    Absolutely. I hadn't used one of my PCs for a couple of months and turned it on earlier today to find Chrome was two versions behind (7 vs 9).
jackvalentine 16y ago
Isn't Firefox 4 where Mozilla want to start using silent updates?
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Firefox is just playing catchup these days, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, that's fantastic. I think everyone benefits from auto-updates.
natmaster 16y ago
Not true. Firefox has auto updates, and will be pushing websockets the moment it gets fixed. Firefox also has the best record for turnout time on security fixes (many being released two days after report), so I doubt that will be slow. From: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/12/websockets-disabled-in-firefox-4/ http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/12/websockets-disabled-in-fire... "Once we have a version of the protocol that we feel is secure and stable, we will include it in a release of Firefox – even a minor update release."
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  I don't know what you're calling not true. I never suggested that Firefox wouldn't fix this in a x.1 revision. My point is more than 14% of Firefox users are using a version lower than current stable (and that's not counting who is in the [3.6.0, 3.6.12) range.

axod 16y ago

Relying on feature detection alone for WebSocket is a big mistake though. Websocket can fail for a number of reasons - proxies, stupid ISPs that interfere with HTTP traffic etc. In Mibbit, the code is something like this: if(WebSocket in window) { tryWebsocket(); window.setTimeout(function() { if (nothingHappened()) useComet() }, 5*1000); } else { useComet(); } Where comet in this case is keep alive long polling XHR.

taitems 16y ago
That's an interesting way of managing timeouts. Is the 5*1000 intended to just be a more readable way of specifying seconds?
- mcav 16y ago
  I assume so. I do the same thing.
- axod 16y ago
  Closure compiles it down to 5000 or 5E3 or whatever is smallest in my build process, so all the browser sees is '5e3'. I find 5*1000 most readable in my source code though.
catechu 16y ago
How can you check if nothing happened?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  By changing some global variable in the callback and checking if it has changed in 'somethinghappened' (which only gets called after 5 seconds, giving the callback time enough to get called).
bradgessler 16y ago
Libraries like Socket.IO will detect if the connection can be made or not... so this point is moot. Feature detection first, connection detection second, then start degrading the transport until all options are exhausted.
- axod 16y ago
  Sure. I was just explaining for those who prefer to write things like this themselves.

ergo98 16y ago

Yet another reason Chrome's rolling release auto updates are glorious. I like Chrome's silent updates, but the only real difference between it and Firefox is that Firefox informs the user that the update is being applied. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

drivebyacct2 16y ago
Chrome updates much more frequently and I think you discount the amount that users ignore the update warnings.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Of course, the people who know what Chrome is are not the people that ignore the warnings.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Couldn't disagree more. You'd be shocked at the number of CE/CS majors that ignore Firefox updates and complain about them. My mom uses Chrome on my parents' laptop and my dad uses Firefox. Guess which one is out of date :).
- chime 16y ago
  Absolutely. I hadn't used one of my PCs for a couple of months and turned it on earlier today to find Chrome was two versions behind (7 vs 9).

jackvalentine 16y ago

Isn't Firefox 4 where Mozilla want to start using silent updates?

drivebyacct2 16y ago
Firefox is just playing catchup these days, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, that's fantastic. I think everyone benefits from auto-updates.

natmaster 16y ago

Not true. Firefox has auto updates, and will be pushing websockets the moment it gets fixed. Firefox also has the best record for turnout time on security fixes (many being released two days after report), so I doubt that will be slow. From: http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/12/websockets-disabled-in-firefox-4/ http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/12/websockets-disabled-in-fire... "Once we have a version of the protocol that we feel is secure and stable, we will include it in a release of Firefox – even a minor update release."

drivebyacct2 16y ago
I don't know what you're calling not true. I never suggested that Firefox wouldn't fix this in a x.1 revision. My point is more than 14% of Firefox users are using a version lower than current stable (and that's not counting who is in the [3.6.0, 3.6.12) range.