comments inline....
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_intalio.com> wrote:
> I agree that we need to do something for websockets this iteration of
> the servlet spec.
>
+1 :)
>
> I also agree that trying to get generic upgrade support is probably
> the wrong way to go (and a lot of work). Note that SPDY could be
> used transparently to a servlet webapp (and already is if you run on
> google appengine from chrome), and that there is already some
> discussions about websocket over SPDY, so a servlet spec that
> supported websockets could potentially work transparently over SPDY.
> ie no point trying to make a mechanism that works for both Websockets
> and SPDY.
>
+1 :)
>
> regards
>
Ok. I said comments. I did not say substantial comments. It is much more
important to include specific Websocket support in my opinion than a generic
HTTP upgrade. I honestly believe that looking back in 5 or 10 years, the
feature that will be remembered most will from this release will be its
Websocket support (hopefully in a good way). Getting Websocket right has got
to be at the top or near the top of this JSR.
--
*Rick Hightower*
(415) 968-9037
Profile <http://www.google.com/profiles/RichardHightower>