WCF WebSockets

#1

Post by shawndumas » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 1:11 PM UTC

WCF WebSockets
blog.davidpadbury.com

Re: WCF WebSockets

#2

Post by Tichy » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 2:14 PM UTC

What is WCF? World Coffee Foundation? Wee C Functions? We Crave Freedom?

Re: WCF WebSockets

#3

Post by jeroen » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 2:27 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #2

What is WCF? World Coffee Foundation? Wee C Functions? We Crave Freedom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Communication_Foundatio...

Re: WCF WebSockets

#4

Post by davidpadbury » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 2:29 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #2

What is WCF? World Coffee Foundation? Wee C Functions? We Crave Freedom?

No where near as interesting. Windows Communication Foundation - a networking stack for .NET. Sorry.

Re: WCF WebSockets

#5

Post by axod » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 2:32 PM UTC

Why don't they just implement the accepted WebSocket standard instead of their own competing API?

Re: WCF WebSockets

#6

Post by WayneBloss » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 2:42 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #5

Why don't they just implement the accepted WebSocket standard instead of their own competing API?

WCF is not a competing API. It's a common framework to enable .Net apps to communicate over any type of communications channel (TCP, UDP, Pipes, HTTP, WebSockets, etc) using any type of protocol (SOAP, JSON, plain old XML, Google Protocol Buffers, etc.)

Looking at their past endeavors with WCF (Windows Communications Foundation), you'll find that they implemented SOAP 1.0/1.1 to spec and I have personally used it to communicate with Java and C++ apps. So, I don't think they're going to break WebSockets unless the standard is ill-defined at which point they will start adding their own methodology to it.

Re: WCF WebSockets

#7

Post by davidpadbury » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 2:44 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #5

Why don't they just implement the accepted WebSocket standard instead of their own competing API?

The WebSocket protocol is still very much in flux. This drop is only to give an idea of the server side API would look like (I think anyways). I imagine as the protocol calms down they'll implement whatever's decided on.

Re: WCF WebSockets

#8

Post by axod » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 3:11 PM UTC

davidpadbury wrote: post #7

axod wrote: post #5

Why don't they just implement the accepted WebSocket standard instead of their own competing API?

The WebSocket protocol is still very much in flux. This drop is only to give an idea of the server side API would look like (I think anyways). I imagine as the protocol calms down they'll implement whatever's decided on.

I'm not sure if you'd really call it 'in flux'.

We've been using websocket for over a year now on Mibbit. I think around 20% of our users currently do websocket.

Fair enough to wait and see though, hopefully they'll do it the same way everyone else has.

Re: WCF WebSockets

#9

Post by davidpadbury » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 3:22 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #8

davidpadbury wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WebSocket protocol is still very much in flux. This drop is only to give an idea of the server side API would look like (I think anyways). I imagine as the protocol calms down they'll implement whatever's decided on.

I'm not sure if you'd really call it 'in flux'. We've been using websocket for over a year now on Mibbit. I think around 20% of our users currently do websocket. Fair enough to wait and see though, hopefully they'll do it the same way everyone else has.

By "in flux" I was intending to vaguely refer to the problems with the protocol which has led Firefox and Opera to ship with WebSockets disabled. I'm guessing we're probably going to see some changes to it in the future. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

I honestly don't know a thing about the version of the protocol that they've implemented. It looks like one that they (Microsoft) have submitted - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-hybi-upgrade-hel....

That's cool you're seeing so many clients with WebSockets enabled.

Re: WCF WebSockets

#10

Post by axod » Thu, Jan 13, 2011, 3:35 PM UTC

davidpadbury wrote: post #9

axod wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you'd really call it 'in flux'. We've been using websocket for over a year now on Mibbit. I think around 20% of our users currently do websocket. Fair enough to wait and see though, hopefully they'll do it the same way everyone else has.

By "in flux" I was intending to vaguely refer to the problems with the protocol which has led Firefox and Opera to ship with WebSockets disabled. I'm guessing we're probably going to see some changes to it in the future. Hopefully sooner rather than later. I honestly don't know a thing about the version of the protocol that they've implemented. It looks like one that they (Microsoft) have submitted - http://tools.iet…

Ah true, I'd forgotten about the firefox and opera hoo-haw. Hopefully they sort that out ASAP It's a great shame really.