[undertow-dev] Websockets

[Andrig Miller]

I have had a conversation via e-mail with Mark Little about this particular aspect of Undertow.  The reason that conversation started was because Mark asked me about the status of a particular TAG issue, which was about Netty vs. XNIO.

I had thought that we had agreed, in regards to that TAG issue that XNIO and Netty served two different purposes, and that if you needed something like websockets (already in Netty), that we would use Netty, and if you didn't need additional functionality outside of low level NIO functionality, you would use XNIO.

So, this is a little off topic, but I'm wondering how we ended up not using Netty for the websockets for Undertow in the first place.  It seems like we have built a lot of duplicate functionality for what was already available in Netty.

So, perhaps this should branch off into a different thread, but we need to have this conversation.

Andy

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Douglas" <stuart.w.douglas at gmail.com>
> To: undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:36:42 PM
> Subject: [undertow-dev] Websockets
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> So I have been thinking about websockets, and I think we should make
> some changes.
> 
> At the moment we essentially have 3 different API's, the low level
> XNIO
> API, a Undertow native high level API, and a JSR-356 API (that will
> hopefully stop changing constantly now).
> 
> I think 3 API's is a bit excessive, and we should just have our XNIO
> Channel based low level API, and the JSR-356 API.
> 
> I am also thinking we should split it out of Undertow entirely, as
> really the only undertow dependency is the handshake handler. This
> should make it easier for us to ship a JSR-356 standalone web socket
> client.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Stuart
> _______________________________________________
> undertow-dev mailing list
> undertow-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/undertow-dev
>