Mojolicious could absolutely support draft 76 WebSockets too (already has in the past), *but* the implementation would have to be up to our quality standards.
That means great unit tests, clean code and no security holes. (draft 76 WebSockets are disabled in Firefox and Opera for security reasons atm.)
Now to get someone to invest that much time into something that will be removed again within a year won't be easy.
And even then you'll likely not be very happy with the result, since currently only Chrome and Safari have WebSockets enabled by default.
For production use i would highly recommend plain old Ajax and Comet, at least until ietf-09 WebSockets arrive in all major browsers later this year.
--
Sebastian Riedel
http://mojolicio.us
http://twitter.com/kraih
http://blog.kraih.com
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mojolicious" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mojol...@googlegroups.com (mailto:mojol...@googlegroups.com).
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mojolicious...@googlegroups.com (mailto:mojolicious...@googlegroups.com).
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious?hl=en.
--
Sebastian Riedel
http://mojolicio.us
http://twitter.com/kraih
http://blog.kraih.com
Am Freitag, 1. Juli 2011 um 23:33 schrieb Todd:
We currently have support for both, server and client side WebSockets, that makes testing very straightforward as long as both use the same protocol version.
You would have to come up with a whole new test system to support multiple versions.
The biggest problem with draft 76 WebSockets however is the handshake, which unlike ietf-09 is not HTTP compatible, that means you can't reuse our current infrastructure and have to actually hack around it.
You basically would have to maintain a separate HTTP-ish parser that's not really HTTP, but directly exposed to the outside world. (a lot to go wrong...)