On 06/29/2012 04:03 PM, Danny Coward wrote:
Yes. (Also with the equivalent Reader/Writer of course.)
It's necessary for the core use-case of serializing JSON, XML, proto-buf, hessian, etc, messages, as well as for custom protocols like STOMP over web-socket, or rewriting ZeroMQ over websocket. For example XMPP over WebSocket is already a draft proposal.
Streams are also better for high-performance and for very large messages.
Possibly. I'd personally prefer nailing down the core blocking API first before discussing the more complicated non-blocking APIs. I'd like to match the servlet model as much as possible, while avoiding javax.servlet dependencies.
Well, let me unpack this because there are several intertwined issues that should be separated:
1) The WebSocket frame/fragment is not an application-visible concept (excluding extensions for the moment). The application-visible concept in WebSocket is the message. In fact, the early IETF drafts only had messages and no frames.
The fragment is supposed to be like TCP/IP frames. Although they exist, applications can't use them or even really be aware of the boundaries. It's for WebSocket protocol implementations and proxies to split/join fragments as needed (and specifically for mux, which is a core websocket implementation extension, not a user extension.)
2) Even for extensions, the IETF WebSocket Multiplexing group is finding that frame-based extensions are a problem, because they interact in difficult ways. There's a suggestion on one of their threads that perhaps only the mux extension itself even be aware at all about frames, and all other extensions work on messages.
So "fragment" is wrong for the application, and probably even extensions.
You could have "buffer" as in write(buffer, offset, length, isLast) just to make it absolutely clear that the sending buffer has nothing to do with websocket frames, but...
3) async sends are a problem because they imply queuing or at least large buffering, and raise the question of who owns the buffer, memory allocation, if there are extra copies just to handle the async, etc. These aren't appropriate for the low level API. (A higher async messaging/queuing on top of the low level API might be fine, but not the lowest level.)
4) the "isLast" kind of API (assuming blocking) is functionally equivalent to a stream, but someone would need to write a stream wrapper if they're serializing xml, json, etc. Which isn't really something that the API should force on an application.
5) async/isLast receives are truly messy if you're deserializing xml, json, etc, because you either need to buffer the entire message (!) before starting to deserialize, or create a complicated threaded producer/consumer model to create a stream wrapper. Again, this is fairly brutal to require of an application.
6) interaction with the multiplexing layer. There's a fairly good chance that the multiplexing extension will be approved. If so, the core messaging API should continue to work with mux exactly as-is without any application changes.
Mux itself will need to refragment/block/buffer as necessary. So the application buffers sends won't necessarily have any relation to the actual frames once mux is done working with it.
... So basically, the async/chunk style APIs are a problem.
Although the base layer shouldn't be an async/chunked API, I'm all for an async/messaging layer written on top of the simple blocking streaming layer, if it's a general solution useful for a large class of applications.
[jsr356-experts] Re: Streaming API: was For Review: v002 API and example code