oberstet

Regarding docs, yes agreed. But we are working on this and things are improving. This is still moving fast .

Rgd the server stability issues you mention: what WAMP router are you using?

Minor, but still: you can't write a conforming WebSocket client in 3 lines of code, and you can't write a conforming WebSocket server in 200 lines of code. I know: I have written a couple. Anyway. Moot, since this isn't about WebSocket.

WebSocket only provides you with a bidirectional message channel. It's low-level, and does not provide application messaging.

WAMP can run _over_ WebSocket, but also other message channels. E.g. you can have WAMP running over a shared-memory message queue.

socket.io is a JS point solution for PubSub only .. http://wamp.ws/compared/#socketio

In a way yes, but WAMP offer more functionality (e.g. PubSub)

WAMP can use different serialization formats, and MsgPack is one of them.

Awesome! FWIW, Autobahn also supports PubSub and RPC over WebSocket in a unified protocol: WAMP (http://wamp.ws/)

Indeed. I'd expect increasing uptake in 2014. I think the current "Python 3 sucks" outburst is indeed a sign it's at a tipping point .. the usual ignore, denial, accept cycle.

"standard" run-times .. yeah, right. But try PyPy - same perf class as V8. And LuaJIT - probably faster than V8 - apart from GC. And for GC perf: Erlang does parallel (per "green thread") GCing ..

Yes, exactly. Currently, it is not registered, but claimed and in commercial use. Note that this is only done to protect the integrity of WAMP over time .. "if you fork it, thats cool, but don't call it WAMP". WAMP is an open protocol, free to anyone!

WAMP was specifically designed to do both RPC (think AJAX-on-steriods) plus PubSub within one protocol based on WebSocket. socket.io seems to be PubSub only, but transport neutral. WAMP currently is only defined for WebSocket transport, but was designed to work over any reliable, bidirectional, message oriented transport. A future version of WAMP may define new transports, and also new serialization formats (currently JSON only, but WebSocket also provides binary transparency, so there may be value in having a binary WAMP, i.e. based on Bencode).

While it MAY be true that WS is blocked by some mobile carriers (though I haven't seen it myself .. at least in Germany), providers will have more problems blocking WSS since it runs over TLS. Since WSS only starts after a TLS connection is established, identifying the traffic as WebSocket requires intercepting TLS using MITM proxy techniques. This in turn requires the ability to inject ad-hoc "fake" certificates into browsers .. which is possible if there is an appropriate CA cert for the proxy installed in the browser. This can and is be done within controlled envionments like corporate networks where you can force user browsers to incorporate such CA certs. I never have seen it on public networks. It would be a major security and privacy issue. My provider reading my online banking traffic? Yes, please! I sue them to hell and make some bucks;)