Smalltalk › Pharo › Pharo Smalltalk Developers

Fwd: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

7 messages Options

Marcus Denker-4

Fwd: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc

Begin forwarded message:

From: Andy Burnett <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc
Date: July 31, 2012 9:39:15 PM GMT+02:00
To: [hidden email]
Reply-To: A friendly place where any question about pharo is welcome <[hidden email]>

I think we need Websocket support built into Pharo. So, rather than talk about it, I have contracted with Sven to build it into Zinc. We hope to have a running version in the early Autumn.

The purpose of this email is:

To let everyone know that we will have Websocket support soon
To ask if anyone else feels that they would gain commercial benefit from using this feature, and if so, whether they would like to help cover the cost. If so, please drop me an email.

Cheers
Andy

Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Frank Shearar-3

Re: Fwd: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc

On 31 July 2012 21:12, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Andy Burnett <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc
> Date: July 31, 2012 9:39:15 PM GMT+02:00
> To: [hidden email]
> Reply-To: A friendly place where any question about pharo is welcome
> <[hidden email]>
>
> I think we need Websocket support built into Pharo. So, rather than talk
> about it, I have contracted with Sven to build it into Zinc. We hope to have
> a running version in the early Autumn.
>
> The purpose of this email is:
>
> To let everyone know that we will have Websocket support soon
> To ask if anyone else feels that they would gain commercial benefit from
> using this feature, and if so, whether they would like to help cover the
> cost. If so, please drop me an email.
>
> Cheers
> Andy

I'm always happy with multiple, competing implementations of things -
I was under the impression that Andreas Raab's WebClient also supports
WebSockets?

frank

> --
> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
>

Marcus Denker-4

Re: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc

On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>
> I'm always happy with multiple, competing implementations of things -
> I was under the impression that Andreas Raab's WebClient also supports
> WebSockets?
>

We originally wanted to use WebClient and were told very clearly that it
was off limits for Pharo. (this is why Zinc was done).

Marcus

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Frank Shearar-3

Re: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc

On 31 July 2012 21:57, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I'm always happy with multiple, competing implementations of things -
>> I was under the impression that Andreas Raab's WebClient also supports
>> WebSockets?
>>
>
>
> We originally wanted to use WebClient and were told very clearly that it
> was off limits for Pharo. (this is why Zinc was done).

That's... odd, given that it's licenced under MIT. I'm sad to hear that.

frank

> Marcus
>
>
> --
> Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
>
>

Marcus Denker-4

Re: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc

On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 31 July 2012 21:57, Marcus Denker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm always happy with multiple, competing implementations of things -
>>> I was under the impression that Andreas Raab's WebClient also supports
>>> WebSockets?
>>>
>>
>>
>> We originally wanted to use WebClient and were told very clearly that it
>> was off limits for Pharo. (this is why Zinc was done).
>
> That's... odd, given that it's licenced under MIT. I'm sad to hear that.
>

The MIT change came after we removed it from Pharo.

Zinc is much better anyway. Not only from a technological point of view,
much more from a social one.

Marcus

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Stéphane Ducasse

Re: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc

> Zinc is much better anyway. Not only from a technological point of view,
> much more from a social one.

Zinc constantly improved over the year and sven is always open to improvements.
Zinc is a really nice gift to the community and we deeply appreciated the long effort sven
did. Sven is aligned with our vision to build a powerful, clean, simple and pragmatic system so
this is excellent. This is why a new look at WebSocket is definitively cool.

What is also nice is that sven company uses zinc daily.

Janko Mivšek

Re: Fwd: [Pharo-users] Adding Websocket support to Zinc

In reply to this post by Frank Shearar-3

Dne 31. 07. 2012 22:18, piše Frank Shearar:

> I'm always happy with multiple, competing implementations of things -
> I was under the impression that Andreas Raab's WebClient also supports
> WebSockets?

Swazoo 2.3 beta web server also uses WebSockets and we are currently
upgrading it to the latest WebSocket version. And WebSockets are used by
default in Aida for a while when visitor uses WebSocket enabled browser.

It is certainly quite an an advantage in speed and responsibility of a
web app if WebSockets are used for transport mechanism. Not to mention
the out-of-the shelf realtime web app support, which are now really
simple with WebSockets. By real-time I mean that content of the webpage
is updated immediately when some outside even occured, like new twit
comes. Yes, Twitter is one of the first real-time web apps around.

Best regards
Janko

--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si