As I mentioned here, the WebSockets protocol is, at this point, a bit of a mess due to the evolution of the protocol and the fact that it’s being pulled in various directions by various interested parties. I’m just ranting about some of the things that I find annoying…
The WebSockets protocol includes a way for the endpoints to shut down the connection.
If an endpoint receives a Close frame and that endpoint did not previously send a Close frame, the endpoint MUST send a Close frame in response.
As I mentioned here, the WebSockets protocol is, at this point, a bit of a mess due to the evolution of the protocol and the fact that it’s being pulled in various directions by various interested parties. I’m just ranting about some of the things that I find annoying…
The WebSockets protocol is designed to be extended, which is all well and good. Extensions can, at present, be formally specified by RFCs or be “private use” extensions with names that are prefixed with an “x-”.
As I mentioned here, the WebSockets protocol is, at this point, a bit of a mess due to the evolution of the protocol and the fact that it’s being pulled in various directions by various interested parties. I’m just ranting about some of the things that I find annoying…
The client MUST mask all frames sent to the server. A server MUST close the connection upon receiving a frame with the MASK bit set to 0.
As I mentioned here, the WebSockets protocol is, at this point, a bit of a mess due to the evolution of the protocol and the fact that it’s being pulled in various directions by various interested parties. I’m just ranting about some of the things that I find annoying…
Back when binary frames were mentioned in the WebSocket protocol specification as a slightly hand wavy “something for the future” and only text frames were actually possible to send and receive using the clients at the time then there MAY (in the strictest RFC meaning of the word) have been a need to differentiate between text and binary frames.
As I mentioned here, the WebSockets protocol is, at this point, a bit of a mess due to the evolution of the protocol and the fact that it’s being pulled in various directions by various interested parties. I’m just ranting about some of the things that I find annoying…
The first thing to realise about the WebSockets protocol is that it isn’t really message based at all despite what the RFC claims.
I’ve just upgraded Movable Type from 5.03 to 5.11. The upgrade itself went smoothly except for one thing. A recent fix to MT to remove an obscure HTML standard violation that Firefox was causing problems with means that permalinks with runs of dashes in them have been changed. You can see the full details here on the MT forums where I posted the bug report.
This is more of an issue for me as I did the upgrade and then launched www.
I tend to work with lots of solutions at once. I’m often building code for clients, building and testing new example servers for The Server Framework and running lots of copies of various versions of Visual Studio at once.
Now, if I happen to try and open two VS2010 solutions at around the same time (and given the time it takes for VS2010 to start up that’s not that hard to do), then one of them wins and gets my normal settings and one (probably the one that gets a sharing violation whilst trying to read my normal settings) ends up with some default madness setup that isn’t what I want at all.
The story so far, I’ve owned DevPartner Studio for several years and been on a support contract the whole time. The support situation went a bit flaky when Compuware sold the product to Micro Focus, I expect that either I’m simply not a big enough client for them to care or their post sales and support is just no where near as good as the Compuware offering. With Compuware I’d be contacted when new versions came out and I had a named sales contact that I could also use for questions, etc.
One of the problems of having a collection of tools that interoperate is that there’s often a lag between when a tool will interoperate with the latest version of another tool. I’m hardly a bleeding-edge tool junky, I wait until RTM before I start using the latest Visual Studio on a daily basis, and in the case of VC 6 I stuck with it (as did most of my clients) until VS2005 came out and actually improved life for unmanaged C++ development… However, it seems that some tools take a long long time to catch up with Visual Studio.
So far I’ve found Visual Studio 2010 quite a compelling upgrade from Visual Studio 2008 for native C++ development. Intellisense is better, the build experience seems smoother and faster, editing on a decent development box seems OK, the various profiling and concurrency tools look interesting and, well, it mostly works quite nicely.
It’s a pity that there are some rough edges. I’ve been seeing crashes when I update project and solution files whilst it has them open (a common thing to do if you’re working with source control).
