Re: Websockets on the IBMi

From:"Dean, Robert"
That's why I really think something like Atmosphere is a better solution; it
abstracts the transport layer.The framework will negotiate that based on the
capabilities of both ends.

That may appear to be more convenient from a programming point of view. But it makes the assumption that XHR and WS are merely "transport layers" that can be used interchangeably, which may not always be true. Since XHR uses the traditional request-response cycle, the client may decide to change the next "request" based on the content of the "response", where WS just sends an acknowledgement that it received a response then continues to "listen".

This whole matter of XHR vs. WS would be settled for me if the XHR specification included an optional parameter that provided for NOT transmitting HTTP Headers in requests and responses. That way XHR would be essentially as efficient as WS, without needing to interface with a secondary WS server.

-Nathan.