025600.html


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
 <HEAD>
   <TITLE> [whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not.
   </TITLE>
   <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
   <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:whatwg%40lists.whatwg.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bwhatwg%5D%20WebSocket%20bufferedAmount%20includes%20overhead%20or%20not.&In-Reply-To=%3C4BA88C13.4010908%40helsinki.fi%3E">
   <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
   <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
   <LINK REL="Previous"  HREF="025557.html">
   <LINK REL="Next"  HREF="025601.html">
 </HEAD>
 <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
   <H1>[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not.</H1>
<!--htdig_noindex-->
    <B>Olli Pettay</B> 
    <A HREF="mailto:whatwg%40lists.whatwg.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bwhatwg%5D%20WebSocket%20bufferedAmount%20includes%20overhead%20or%20not.&In-Reply-To=%3C4BA88C13.4010908%40helsinki.fi%3E"
       TITLE="[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not.">Olli.Pettay at helsinki.fi
       </A><BR>
    <I>Tue Mar 23 02:38:27 PDT 2010</I>
    <P><UL>
        <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="025557.html">[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not.
</A></li>
        <LI>Next message: <A HREF="025601.html">[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not.
</A></li>
         <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> 
              <a href="date.html#25600">[ date ]</a>
              <a href="thread.html#25600">[ thread ]</a>
              <a href="subject.html#25600">[ subject ]</a>
              <a href="author.html#25600">[ author ]</a>
         </LI>
       </UL>
    <HR>  
<!--/htdig_noindex-->
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>On 3/18/10 2:15 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
&gt;<i>
</I>&gt;<i> On 05.03.2010, at 15:32, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote:
</I>&gt;<i>
</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> for something no one should care about, as you
</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> implied above.
</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> From API perspective I do care. Web developers shouldn't need to know
</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> about the protocol, yet (s)he should be able to understand what
</I>&gt;&gt;&gt;<i> bufferedAmount means.
</I>&gt;&gt;<i>
</I>&gt;&gt;<i> An explanation like &quot;it's how much data is buffered to be sent over
</I>&gt;&gt;<i> network&quot; seems adequate to me.
</I>&gt;<i>
</I>&gt;<i>
</I>&gt;<i> We have a suggested patch that implements the proposed new behavior for
</I>&gt;<i> WebKit now, but I think that it adds unnecessary complexity, and puts
</I>&gt;<i> limits on how we can refactor the code in the future. We need to
</I>&gt;<i> remember frame boundaries for much longer, making it difficult to
</I>&gt;<i> interface with general purpose networking code.
</I>&gt;<i>
</I>&gt;<i> I'd prefer sticking to the previously specified behavior.
</I>&gt;<i>
</I>&gt;<i> - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov
</I>&gt;<i>
</I>&gt;<i>
</I>
And I certainly prefer the current behavior, where the API is not
so tightly bound to the protocol, and where the bufferedAmount is
handled more close to what progress events do with XMLHttpRequest.

-Olli
</PRE>


<!--endarticle-->
<!--htdig_noindex-->
    <HR>
    <P><UL>
        <!--threads-->
	<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="025557.html">[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not.
</A></li>
	<LI>Next message: <A HREF="025601.html">[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not.
</A></li>
         <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> 
              <a href="date.html#25600">[ date ]</a>
              <a href="thread.html#25600">[ thread ]</a>
              <a href="subject.html#25600">[ subject ]</a>
              <a href="author.html#25600">[ author ]</a>
         </LI>
       </UL>

<hr>
<a href="http://lists.whatwg.org/listinfo.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org">More information about the whatwg
mailing list</a><br>
<!--/htdig_noindex-->
</body></html>

/lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-March/025600.html