/lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-March/025641.html
https://github.com/whatwg/whatwg.org · HTML · 82 lines · 68 code · 7 blank · 7 comment · 0 complexity · 3747c88f35220e422696f53d0bd14ec5 MD5 · raw file
- <!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=%3C164B4845-9B67-4971-ACE3-BEAB76A6822B%40gmail.com%3E">
- <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
- <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
- <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="025639.html">
- <LINK REL="Next" HREF="025642.html">
- </HEAD>
- <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
- <H1>[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not</H1>
- <!--htdig_noindex-->
- <B>Perry Smith</B>
- <A HREF="mailto:whatwg%40lists.whatwg.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bwhatwg%5D%20WebSocket%20bufferedAmount%20includes%20overhead%20or%20not&In-Reply-To=%3C164B4845-9B67-4971-ACE3-BEAB76A6822B%40gmail.com%3E"
- TITLE="[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not">pedzsan at gmail.com
- </A><BR>
- <I>Fri Mar 26 06:09:05 PDT 2010</I>
- <P><UL>
- <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="025639.html">[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not
- </A></li>
- <LI>Next message: <A HREF="025642.html">[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not
- </A></li>
- <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
- <a href="date.html#25641">[ date ]</a>
- <a href="thread.html#25641">[ thread ]</a>
- <a href="subject.html#25641">[ subject ]</a>
- <a href="author.html#25641">[ author ]</a>
- </LI>
- </UL>
- <HR>
- <!--/htdig_noindex-->
- <!--beginarticle-->
- <PRE>On Mar 26, 2010, at 4:24 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
- ><i> On 3/25/10 11:50 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
- </I>>><i>
- </I>>><i> It seems that the consensus is now leaning towards changing the
- </I>>><i> spec again
- </I>>><i> to include the overhead,
- </I>><i> Well, what if the overhead isn't buffered? What if the implementation
- </I>><i> just buffers the bytes from send(), and writes the websocket
- </I>><i> protocol specific bytes to the socket when needed?
- </I>><i>
- </I>><i> And if bufferedAmount includes the overhead, it needs to be specified
- </I>><i> what bufferedAmount is during handshake.
- </I>
- I'm a little confused. I sent out a rather long reply that no one
- replied to. Did it get put into everyone's spam bucket?
- There is no way that someone could even define "the protocol
- overhead"... what does that mean? There are layers of protocols.
- Perry
- </PRE>
- <!--endarticle-->
- <!--htdig_noindex-->
- <HR>
- <P><UL>
- <!--threads-->
- <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="025639.html">[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not
- </A></li>
- <LI>Next message: <A HREF="025642.html">[whatwg] WebSocket bufferedAmount includes overhead or not
- </A></li>
- <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
- <a href="date.html#25641">[ date ]</a>
- <a href="thread.html#25641">[ thread ]</a>
- <a href="subject.html#25641">[ subject ]</a>
- <a href="author.html#25641">[ 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>