[nanomsg] Re: different protocols, parameters

  • From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:52:28 +0100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12/03/14 10:02, Paul Colomiets wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Martin Sustrik
> <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Looks like long-polling a/k/a COMET. Please don't introduce
>>> this kind of crap into nanomsg. It's used by browsers, because
>>> there is not always a way to use websockets. But that's a
>>> different story.
>> 
>> I would say it's just a new transport. We should not care. If
>> people want a long-polling HTTP transport, so be it. Shrug.
>> 
> 
> Ah, let me say so: I would be ok with HTTP transport if somebody 
> would do it fully functional. But I'm strongly opposed to adding a
> transport that only works for few cases. And I believe nobody will
> spend so much time to make HTTP transport work well for all nanomsg
> protocols :)

+1. For a transport to be included into the mainline, it should
actually work.

Martin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTIDxsAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Y5DEH/iR/FBTc/zA/G2U0Lpx4D6Wv
cgNF95Esz3rxVF93ovYeTcAKHCmJ2bvIFo6T6Y6nm0QuM+ZAoWd26vNOtjuEVczc
EzcXntgeUqikyaXDyv6KFHxcgSLrirKscdIcLNXCZ5IcQOE2c0afaIecg6R0T+zh
/9LRz0OI05cAzyAXx3TOXor7v5McU+U1q8sndbpykYA/5BaeUEoMC8ZcAp0vlW8T
gSz9z1K+jw+jYaZ3fDAFLL36WA1UQPu+wUke+Rp+Kc9NQ3ngjD7BkTD5pyl0Fdk0
/c3vNqeWDxCDtXEF38mB1zuzZ2rAhOrm1WD6CYhPHxUyI7LIz45KdBCTuFQacOw=
=LIOh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. nanomsg
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2014