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)
Do you mean web workers? https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers...
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.