
WCF WebSockets - shawndumas
http://blog.davidpadbury.com/2011/01/13/wcf-websockets-first-glance/
======
Tichy
What is WCF? World Coffee Foundation? Wee C Functions? We Crave Freedom?

~~~
davidpadbury
No where near as interesting. Windows Communication Foundation - a networking
stack for .NET. Sorry.

------
axod
Why don't they just implement the accepted WebSocket standard instead of their
own competing API?

~~~
davidpadbury
The WebSocket protocol is still very much in flux. This drop is only to give
an idea of the server side API would look like (I think anyways). I imagine as
the protocol calms down they'll implement whatever's decided on.

~~~
axod
I'm not sure if you'd really call it 'in flux'.

We've been using websocket for over a year now on Mibbit. I think around 20%
of our users currently do websocket.

Fair enough to wait and see though, hopefully they'll do it the same way
everyone else has.

~~~
davidpadbury
By "in flux" I was intending to vaguely refer to the problems with the
protocol which has led Firefox and Opera to ship with WebSockets disabled. I'm
guessing we're probably going to see some changes to it in the future.
Hopefully sooner rather than later.

I honestly don't know a thing about the version of the protocol that they've
implemented. It looks like one that they (Microsoft) have submitted -
[http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-hybi-upgrade-
hel...](http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-hybi-upgrade-hello-
handshake-00).

That's cool you're seeing so many clients with WebSockets enabled.

~~~
davidpadbury
Yeah - A "hoo-haw" is good. The quicker issues are brought to attention and
resolved the better.

~~~
axod
FWIW I think it was an absolute edge case bordering on silliness.

 _if_ there is a crappy silly caching proxy, an attacker can use websocket to
get it to cache things it shouldn't.

I think the fact Chrome hasn't done anything about it, (especially since they
can auto update and turn off support tomorrow if they wish), is telling.

