Luigi Pinca
Luigi Pinca
As discussed in #1010 and as a maintainer of `ws` I'm +1 on adding WebSocket to core.
@kof > is it hard to be done right? No. > is it widely used? Yes it is. > does it have a clear spec? Yes. > is it likely...
@watson userland implementations work and I'm a big supporter of small core but HTTP(s) and many other modules are in core because they are so popular that it made sense...
I would argue that it's actually easier to scale WebSocket than HTTP polling and it's way more CPU efficient. The protocol was designed to solve the HTTP polling problems, see...
@kof with WebSocket it doesn't matter as long as the TCP connection is established, all messages are sent over the same connection so they all hit the same server. Sticky...
@kof not sure I understand. The websocket is closed along with the underlying TCP connection and a new one created.
Yes, but ideally the majority of TCP connections are stable no? And even in the worst case scenario it's still better than long polling.
> And all that work would essentially be just re-inventing the wheel. The same is true for all of us working on competing userland implementations. We are writing the same...
> Should it support reconnection management? No, not a core business. > wss? Yes, the only difference here is using the `https` module instead of `http`. This is transparent to...
I'll answer with another question. If you need express or hapi, why having `http` in core? 😄