On 08/10/2011 23:47, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> Rajiv.
>
> Oh cool... should have read this before responding to Remy.
>
> Makes sense for the servlet API to avoid trying to solve all of the WS
> API issues and instead just focus on how to well handle the initial
> upgrade request and then pass control to some other specification.
>
> Note that I'm not that keen on allowing applications to handle the
> upgraded connection. I'd like to see that containers are still
> responsible for whatever protocol is upgraded to. So we need a way
> to expose the upgrade HTTP request to the servlet together with
> knowledge of what target protocols the container supports.
Why? Isn't that unnecessarily limiting? If we allow the application to
handle the upgraded connection that gives the application the freedom to
work with whatever protocol they choose. Certainly, I see the container
providing an implementation of some protocols but I don't see (right now
anyway) a reason to enforce that all protocols are provided by the
container.
Mark