On 30/06/2012 00:04, Danny Coward wrote:
> On 6/25/12 11:44 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 23/06/2012 00:29, Danny Coward wrote:
<snip/>
>>> What's missing ?
>> Extension support.
>> Sub-protocol support.
>> Streams.
> What more do you think we should be thinking about to support
> sub-protocols ? We have the necessary information available for the
> handshake. Perhaps we should be looking at how to express a subprotocol
> in the API as more than just a name ?
Ignore this one. I didn't read the API carefully enough.
>>> * Handshake: the API assumes the developer has minimal knowledge of
>>> the details of the handshake process, save for the basic elements of
>>> the URI, optional Origin check, subprotocol preferences. What's
>>> missing ?
>> I'm already seeing requests for pretty much everything available on the
>> HttpServletRequest object. The general indication so far is that the WS
>> API needs to be fairly low-level with the 'convenience' stuff left to
>> the higher-level frameworks.
> Do you have a couple pointers to those requests ?
Parameters, IP address, user, roles:
http://markmail.org/message/qqwqcyg4npxv3bks
Sessions (with clustering):
http://markmail.org/message/nofidkc56j5dk7ef
All headers:
RFC 6544 4.2.1 10 (optional)
The request:
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51181#c31
Mark