users@websocket-spec.java.net

[jsr356-users] [jsr356-experts] Re: Ideas for narrowing scope

From: Danny Coward <danny.coward_at_oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:59:24 -0700 (PDT)

Thanks Scott and Greg.

So its looking like we will drop the extensions SPI for this version.

What do others feel about the client API ?

Thanks,

- Danny

On 11/1/12 3:15 PM, Greg Wilkins wrote:
>
>
> On 25 October 2012 12:16, Danny Coward <danny.coward_at_oracle.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto:gregw_at_intalio.com>>
> http://www.webtide.com
> Developer advice and support from the Jetty & CometD experts.


-- 
<http://www.oracle.com> 	*Danny Coward *
Java EE
Oracle Corporation