On 25 October 2012 12:16, Danny Coward <danny.coward_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> The support for extensions in the Early Draft includes support for web
> socket extensions in two ways:-
>
> 1) The ability to list installed extensions by name, and provide an
> extension matching algorithm in the opening handshake. (see e.g.
> ServerEndpointConfiguration)
> 2) The ability to create a (portable) web socket extension written in
> Java, and to install it in any JSR 356 implementation. (see, e.g.
> Extension, FrameBuilder)
>
I see that most extensions are going to be between browser implementations
and server implementations. I see very little need for application
provided protocol extensions ( which is almost an oxymoron!)
So deferring 2 is good - maybe even indefinitely.
cheers
--
Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_intalio.com>
http://www.webtide.com
Developer advice and support from the Jetty & CometD experts.