Yet another small step into ChromeOS take over.
Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
81–90 of 171 posts
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#82I think a lot of people don't realize it's possible to use UDP in browsers today with WebRTC DataChannel. I have a demo of multiplayer Quake III using peer-to-peer UDP here: https://thelongestyard.link/ Direct sockets will have their uses for compatibility with existing applications, but it's possible to do almost any kind of networking you want on the web if you control both sides of the connection.
Awesome demo. I’ve really missed that map it’s been too long.
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#83The inner platform effect intensifies.
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#84Status of specification: "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." Status in Chrome: shipping in 131 Expect people claiming this is a vital standard that Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ uncritically just include this
Expect Apple claiming this is a not vital standard and Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ to obviously just include this
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#85Great, so now a mis-click and your browser will have a field day infecting your printer, coffee machine and all the other crap that was previously shielded by NAT and/or a firewall.
As long as they don't change the spec, this will only be available to special locally installed apps in enterprise ChromeOS environments. I don't think their latest weird app format is going to make it to other browsers, so this will remain one of those weird Chrome only APIs that nobody uses.
> special locally installed apps in enterprise ChromeOS environments
There was https://developer.chrome.com/docs/apps/overview though, so this seems to be a kind of planned feature creep after deprecating former one? "Yeah our enterprise partners now totally need this, you see, no reasoning needed"
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#86Status of specification: "It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." Status in Chrome: shipping in 131 Expect people claiming this is a vital standard that Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ uncritically just include this
Expect Apple claiming this is a not vital standard and Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ to obviously just include this
Which part of "is not a w3c standard and not any standards track" do you not understand?
I am not surprised sites like that include Chrome-only non-standards, they've done this for years claiming impartiality
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#87Thank god they plan to limit this to electron type apps.
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#88so with this I would be able to create a server in my desktop web app and sync all my devices using webrtc
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Expect Apple claiming this is a not vital standard and Apple is not implementing because they don't want web apps to compete with App Store. Also expect sites like https://whatpwacando.today/ to obviously just include this
Which part of "is not a w3c standard and not any standards track" do you not understand? I am not surprised sites like that include Chrome-only non-standards, they've done this for years claiming impartiality
Cry me a river. Apple doesn't need you to defend their strategic and intentional PWA boycott.
Re: Direct Sockets API in Chrome 131
#90Can a browser run a web server with this?
Since it allows for accepting incoming TCP connections, this should allow for HTTP servers to run within the browser, although running directly on port 80/443 might not be supported everywhere (can't see it mentioned in the spec, but from what I remember on most *nix systems only root can listen on ports below 1024, though I might be mistaken since it's been a while)
[deleted]