santosh joshi wrote:
Can anyone tell me whether Tomcat 7 provide support for HTML 5 web sockets and also what other servers provide support for HTML 5 Web sockets.
Thanks
Santosh
Experience keeps a dear School, but Fools will learn in no other.
---
Benjamin Franklin - Postal official and Weather observer
Experience keeps a dear School, but Fools will learn in no other.
---
Benjamin Franklin - Postal official and Weather observer
santosh joshi wrote:Reading that article just gave me a though that everyone seems to be excited both major browsers...
![]()
We don't know if the climate change whosey-whatsit is man made or just a part of the end of days.
Tim Holloway wrote:Interestingly enough, this morning's reading popped up a warning from the W3C against rushing into HTML5. Apparently not only is support still spotty, but some implementation details haven't been totally nailed down yet: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9201919/Microsoft_opens_HTML5_Labs
We don't know if the climate change whosey-whatsit is man made or just a part of the end of days.
Richard O'Shay wrote:
Tim Holloway wrote:Interestingly enough, this morning's reading popped up a warning from the W3C against rushing into HTML5. Apparently not only is support still spotty, but some implementation details haven't been totally nailed down yet: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9201919/Microsoft_opens_HTML5_Labs
Except that article pertains to Microsoft which only recently abandoned Silverlight as an interoperable replacement for the soon-to-be-defunct Flash (Silverlight is now being relegated to LOBs at best). The specifications are very, very stable although not finalized. Chrome, Firefox and Safari have long had websocket support; only IE requires an experimental plug-in. Unfortunately it still represents around 19% of browser market share. The good news is a) they are adding support, b) their market share continues to plunge.
Correlation does not prove causality.
Roger F. Gay wrote:I assume the dates on the posts are messed up right now. It says this message is from years ago, while the link is from last year
and I just now received an email telling me there's a new response post.
Anyways - just wanted to add that I've been using the Google plug-in for MSIE. Not only does it properly drive websockets
Bear Bibeault wrote:The article is dated Dec 21, and Tim's post was on the 22nd. What's weird about that?
Bear Bibeault wrote:
Anyways - just wanted to add that I've been using the Google plug-in for MSIE. Not only does it properly drive websockets
That may be great, but it's not generally useful. Web developers can't assume that end users will be using the plug-in and so have to still code for Microsoft's lack of foresight. The good news is that IE9 is miles more standards-compliant than previous versions. Too bad it took a market share in free fall to get Microsoft off its ass and realize that trying to set their own proprietary "standards" was a failing strategy.
Correlation does not prove causality.
Roger F. Gay wrote:It's set up to automatically ask if the user wants to install Google Webkit.
This allows developers to build and maintain one single version that is properly built according to standards. Let MSIE users go though that additional rather simple step of accepting installation of Webkit
I think anything else is foolish.
MS doesn't pay me to write work-arounds for their coding errors, so why should I?
Joe carco wrote:Websocket now has its own official RFC: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/WebSockets-becomes-proposed-standard-1394315.html
And Websocket is apparently supported by Glssfish 3.1, so I hope it won't be long until Tomcat gets a "WebSocketEngine" too
Correlation does not prove causality.
Tim Holloway wrote:I ran across some Java-based HTML5 websocket socket servers in my wanderings through Google, but at the moment I don't think any production servers support HTML5 websockets.
Of course, to make it work, you also need an HTML5 websocket client.
Predrag Stojadinovic wrote:I suggest the jWebSocket open-source project.
Correlation does not prove causality.
Maybe I'm missing something here or not understanding what you mean?Roger F. Gay wrote:
Predrag Stojadinovic wrote:I suggest the jWebSocket open-source project.
Why? It looks like it's not been properly done; i.e. it doesn't say that it's full duplex ... just that the server can control client-to-client communication and it uses RPC. This may not be a real standard WebSocket package at all??
Predrag Stojadinovic wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here or not understanding what you mean?Roger F. Gay wrote:
Predrag Stojadinovic wrote:I suggest the jWebSocket open-source project.
Why? It looks like it's not been properly done; i.e. it doesn't say that it's full duplex ... just that the server can control client-to-client communication and it uses RPC. This may not be a real standard WebSocket package at all??
Did you take a look at it? The demos, the entire code, the plugins and so on?
It has a Java based WebSocket server, pure JavaScript based WebSocket client with multiple subprotocols and additional clients for Java and Android plus the Flash based WebSocket Wrapper for cross-browser compatibility.
Have you seen the features list?
Again, maybe I'm missing something or misunderstood you, but I do not understand what is it that the jWebSocket project is missing?
Correlation does not prove causality.
That's actually amazing, since the word standardized is right there on the home page... right next to "technology specified by W3C and IETF"Roger F. Gay wrote:I searched for the word "standard" and couldn't find it.
A part their calling a websocket??? We're definitely on the wrong page here... I have to ask what exactly are you talking about?Roger F. Gay wrote:The documentation ("infrastructure") shows that the part their calling a websocket is based on "JavaScript WebSocket", whatever that is. From there, looks like they might have built a chat system ... which is why I think their introductory page mentions server controlled client to client rather than full duplex (what websockets do).
marketing spin?Roger F. Gay wrote:So, my take on it at this point is that they're doing a bit of marketing spin on a javascript based chat system.
Then try it before making a judgment...Roger F. Gay wrote:I don't know how well it works, but doesn't look like you should go there unless that's what you're looking for.
I never said it's the best or anything like that, I just suggested it because it is an open-source Java based WebSocket server with many different clients available and ready.Roger F. Gay wrote:It doesn't look like the best recommendation for a websocket system.
Predrag Stojadinovic wrote:If you have a better recommendation then, by all means, please tell us.
Correlation does not prove causality.