News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:You might not need WebSockets by jongjong on Friday April 11, 2025 @08:08PM (#43660065)
Pretty much. In this case, WebSockets is simpler to implement than HTTP2; it's closer to raw TCP, you just send and receive raw packets... It's objectively simpler, more efficient and more flexible.

It's a tough sell to convince me that a protocol which was designed primarily for resource transfer via a strict, stateless request-response mode of interaction, with server push tacked on top as an afterthought is simpler than something which was built from the ground up to be bidirectional.

Re:You might not need WebSockets by bobmcnamara on Friday April 11, 2025 @10:04PM (#43660673)
I fixed a few bugs in a WebSocket client and was blown away by the things they do to trick old proxies into not screwing it all up.
Re:You might not need WebSockets by fenesiistvan on Saturday April 12, 2025 @12:39PM (#43665928)
I would be interested in those tricks
Re:You might not need WebSockets by bobmcnamara on Saturday April 12, 2025 @04:40PM (#43667779)
A big one is 'masking' all client requests that a proxy can't effectively cache the response since the request always changes.

The RFC explains it: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6455#section-5.3

Re:You might not need WebSockets by AtlasBarfed on Friday April 11, 2025 @11:22PM (#43661058)
Aren't websockets the only way to some sort of actual multi-core and threaded code in JavaScript, or is it still subject to the single background thread limitation and it just runs like node does?
Re:You might not need WebSockets by nothrabannosir on Friday April 11, 2025 @11:41PM (#43661147)