Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

OpenAjax CommunicationHub: What should it encompass?

Category: OpenAjax

Coach Wei is chair of the OpenAjax CommunicationHub task force, and he wants feedback:

CommunicationHub is another part of the technical work that OpenAjax Alliance has been working on. The goal of CommunicationHub is to identify and propose solutions for communications related interoperability issues, eventually leading to the formation of a working group around this area. The CommunicationHub Task Force consists of 19 members currently(Dojo, LightStreamer, SAP, IBM, Nexaweb, WebTide, OpenSpot, IceSoft, DWR, Tibco, VertexLogic, Adobe, eclayer, Zend, Oracle, OpenLink, coradiant, etc) and I chair the task force.

Based on the last few month’s discussion, the task force is gradually converging onto a common problem defintion.

The draft discusses issues with:

  • Client side Ajax Push interoperability
  • Client side Ajax Push multi-tab/window usability
  • Server side Ajax communication interoperability
  • Service side Ajax communication efficiency

What would you like to see come out of this?

Posted by Dion Almaer at 6:09 am

3.3 rating from 35 votes


Comments feed TrackBack URI

For me wanting a push connection to travel across a regular http request is a hack, and a crude one at that. I’d prefer it if the various frameworks got together to figure out what browser extension they would need (something like flash’s xmlsocket perhaps) to allow server push, and then contact the browser makers and standardization organizations (W3 and WHATWG) to get this stuff into browsers ASAP.

If you design the API well, then for incompatible browsers fall-back libraries may be provided, like how XHR was emulated with frames.

Comment by Joeri — May 30, 2007

I’d like to see some proposals on how to solve the connection limit conundrum. 2 per host just isn’t enough any more, and it’d be nice not to have to resort to the CNAME hack. There must be a better way of managing this in an intelligent manner, with a little help from the server / protocol rather than a strict, unbudging limit.

Comment by Ben — May 30, 2007

19 members, but only 17 are listed and finishing by “etc.”.

Who are the 2 missing ?

Comment by Laurent V. — May 30, 2007

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.