Closed
Bug 1247634
Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
Update TCPSocket to current W3C spec
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Device Interfaces, defect)
Core
DOM: Device Interfaces
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: abr, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: dom-triaged)
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1056444 +++ Several changes have been made to the API since our implementation was written. In general, these changes take two forms: conversion of EventHandlers to Promises, and the use of Streams for input and output. Spec reference: http://www.w3.org/2012/sysapps/tcp-udp-sockets/#interface-tcpsocket
Reporter | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
Reporter | ||
Updated•9 years ago
|
See Also: → libdweb-udp
Comment 1•9 years ago
|
||
My (concise, potentially incorrect) understanding of the situation as last discussed with :sicking and the spec author is that: 1) The spec is dead and the editor is done with it. 2) No one plans to implement it / converge to it. 3) If Mozilla made any changes to our API, we might as well just adopt the Chrome Apps socket API since you can wrap/polyfill TCP into any form you want, generally, and it's a net improvement to converge to one API. The mooted dev-b2g and dev-webapi forums are, I believe, where the Mozilla discussions took place, if you are interested. I can also help dig them up. That all said, it would be totally sweet to adapt the TCP API to use the Streams API when available.
Updated•9 years ago
|
Whiteboard: dom-triaged
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•9 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Andrew Sutherland [:asuth] from comment #1) > My (concise, potentially incorrect) understanding of the situation as last > discussed with :sicking and the spec author is that: > 1) The spec is dead and the editor is done with it. > 2) No one plans to implement it / converge to it. > 3) If Mozilla made any changes to our API, we might as well just adopt the > Chrome Apps socket API since you can wrap/polyfill TCP into any form you > want, generally, and it's a net improvement to converge to one API. Thanks! I managed to track down some of that and deduce the rest after I filed the bug. I was thrown off by finding an editor's draft that was less than a month old, which gave the impression of active development. It appears to have been an automated build triggered by an update to the "README" in the git repo. *sigh* Given the fact that this spec has been abandoned, I agree that making changes to our interface to conform to it doesn't make a lot of sense. We should simply document what we have, and make it available to WebExtensions. Unless Chrome intends to expose chrome.sockets to WebExtensions, the value of implementing an act-alike API has questionable value. I'm closing this bug as being unactionable.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Updated•9 years ago
|
Keywords: dev-doc-needed
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•