Salut,
On 12-07-03 7:06 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> 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
to add to Mark's link, the Atmosphere Framework is used a lot for it's
portable WebSocket layer and if you browse the mailing list you will see
this is highly used
https://github.com/Atmosphere/atmosphere
Currently I do hack both Tomcat and Jetty to make it work properly, a
proper API would be good.
A+
-- Jeanfrancois
>
> Mark