3 ms·
As far as getting cheap framing and bidirectional communication over an HTTP port goes, there's nothing to stop you using websocket server->server. For example
by cookguyruffles 5y ago
As far as getting cheap framing and bidirectional communication over an HTTP port goes, there's nothing to stop you using websocket server->server. For example users, many crypto exchanges publish their feed this way
- codeflo 5y agoBut why, except to claim “web-scale”? Especially for publishing events, isn’t something like MQTT a lot saner?
- cookguyruffles 5y agoI already listed two, because you need - cheap framing - bidirectional comms - are already exposing an HTTP port - can make no assumptions about the client's networking than port 443 available, even if only via a HTTPS proxy - can make no assumptions about the client's software except they can speak an extremely common protocol - want security to work the same way it does for the rest of your services "web-scale" doesn't come into it. Websockets are inherently difficult to scale because they're stateful, but in return you get the lowest latency in both directions the underlying network can provide with extremely reasonable (2-4 bytes) overhead compared to raw TCP or SSL
- megous 5y agoNo broker.