Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of WebSocket implementations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Spud111 (talk | contribs) at 08:49, 11 October 2013 (→Deleted Implementations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconComputing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

An editor has claimed that I have a conflict of interest in this page. Please see my statement here User_talk:Oberstet#Conflict_of_Interest_on_WebSockets_comparison. —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

With regard to the other objections raised, please see my comment on the objecting editor's talk page User_talk:AlistairMcMillan#WebSocket.

Oberstet (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Since the changes to the websocket protocol versions 8-13, the HLL Websocket Server is one of the few (maybe the only for a while) with an actual live demonstration using the updated protocol, which has now been submitted to become the actual standard. There are very few experts on websockets at this point. It's new technology, and unlike movies, there's not a lot of people out there to review.


Further, above editor has removed the following list of implementations, first from the WebSocket page, because it would be "an invitation to spam" and violates the WP:LINKFARM policy. Then, after I moved the list to this page - adding the comment that they should be included into the comparison page over time - above editor removed it also from this page, pointing to Wikipedia:NOT.

I disagree:

  • the mere links to WS implementations is already useful information to i.e. developers wanting to learn/deploy WS
  • having the list at least temporary on this page, to encourage people to do further work and include it into the comparison table with detailed feature-wise information is even more useful
  • denying Wikipedia user information by blindly following "policies" to the letter is not helpful

Oberstet (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Further I assume that it is not vandalism or the like to include the deleted list now at least on this talk page for users to discuss.

Should you happen to know the details for one of those implementations, please consider including it into the comparison table.

Oberstet (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The main page just has a particular type of "notable" websocket implementation, however there are many other uses for it, for example in Embedded world to provide realtime UI in browser. I am the author of libwebsockets, like the other deleted ones here it's certainly going to be of interest to certain people looking for lightweight, embedded websockets and not, as the page currently has, just browsers and big iron solutions. Maybe it means there should be another table or another page? Warmcat1 (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Implementations

My organization has been evaluating WebSockets strategies for some upcoming initiatives, and the previous version of this page had been of great use to us by providing information on a large number of libraries and giving test results from the Autobahn test suite - a de facto standard for WS implementations. Additionally, some of the libraries that have been removed from this page are notable in the tech community, namely libwebsockets, websocketpp, and Autobahn. The recent modifications are destructive. Can we roll them back?

Acanaday (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the current version of the page is neatly informational, but useless in the extreme to serious developers looking to try out different WS implementations. Additionally, some of the implementations might not be as notable as say Firefox, but they are targeted at smaller markets. A C Websockets implementation targeted towards embedded devices is not going to accumulate the internet notoriety of some of these other systems. Despite this, if you're doing embedded development, or light-weight high-performance development, none of the items on this list are of any good to you.

Spud111 (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I re-inserted Lightstreamer in the comparison. I didn't understand the reason why it has been deleted while other similar commercial products. I didn't found guidelines and admission criteria, so I assumed it has been vandalized. If there is a specific reason why it shouldn't be added I'll be glad to discuss about it.

Other Implementations

Other implementations that should be included in above detailed comparison over time.

---


The information here is pretty old. Especially for Firefox I see Firefox 8... We are Firefox 13 guys... At least a flags should be set to inform the reader that this is NOT anymore a page "to make choices" because it is obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.19.84.15 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_WebSocket_implementations&oldid=576696582"