[nanomsg] Re: WebSocket transport
- From: Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 08:38:57 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 16/11/14 07:42, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> There are lots of way to handoff from a gateway process to some
>> other nanomsg service; I don’t necessarily think that this
>> handoff will occur in the libnanomsg API — or at least not in
>> what we have today; it would use some kind of new API or a
>> totally separate implementation, I think.
Yes. If the multiplexer is to be shared by all the processes on the
box, it has to be a separate process. I wonder whether it's doable in
Go. Is there support for AF_UNIX/SCM_RIGHTS?
>> In the meantime, the critical things to think about:
>
>> 1.) What do service addresses look like… URIs path components
>> work fine for me, but we should have a spec for this if we are
>> going to have it mean anything. And even if not, we should say
>> so.
Yes. I think we could think of something generic enough to cover the
simple case (with no multiplexer) and put that into the spec. E.g.
"URIs are treated as opaque strings. Different strings correspond to
different SP endpoints."
>> 2.) I remain opposed to the idea that we would encode string
>> protocol names in the websocket handshake — as much as possible
>> the transport layer should have no knowledge of the actual
>> protocols. Keep the layer separations clean.
The "stand-alone multiplexer" scenario seems to support this idea:
Muliplexer handles the WebSocket handshare in SP-agnostic manner (it
could even work with non-SP protocols!) then hands the connection to
the SP-enabled process. The process does initial SP header exchange
afterwards.
>> 3.) As much as possible, once the connection is established, I
>> think websockets should look and act like established TCP
>> streams from the perspective of the protocol. I’d use the same
>> framing and early negotiation (including negotiation of the SP
>> protocol and version) using the same binary packets.
One caveat: There's no "bytestream" concept in WebSockets. We should
just map WebSocket framing to delimit SP messages. Oherwise agreed.
Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUaFSRAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Y3QgH+gPHbI89jVeknWC039t3LE1b
sMSzJE/y2YvZ+44oK0LZTl6pV6NlKIXeWLKTfHWgI4ALKeRzR5QbrgeCpKf0UP4b
JpRrStSmjg7rifChCgFiHRZz41pxGZ7u+brgTfQ/seBCjkfMRIwTmXI5szseFgcS
PdDOui48LQiTUbMv7Btgu6KgVbyTjIUS4qcTs9iYKOXYL+Xn0JsaXkJvkaRXfJWa
CTbpfyasQdCJL+uUwkB5MSOcI7egxbRglkn5VP7+3FlbcmgexWL+Jo+WPBIz7l7q
owojkeWj38iJSPKH79xSDsVHjURA3owFJfFOf9RBcpAPthTsh+hfJe1eGMVomys=
=MqbX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
