search

solid / solid-spec

Solid specification draft 0.7.0
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
1.13k stars 103 forks source link

[proposed spec change] Mention read caps in Updates-Via #179

Closed michielbdejong closed 3 years ago

michielbdejong commented 5 years ago
michielbdejong commented 5 years ago

@acoburn @Vinnl can you review?

Vinnl commented 5 years ago

Looks mostly good to me. I wonder if it's possible/a good idea to also have the server notify the client if it's subscribing to too many updates before it closes the connection?

michielbdejong commented 5 years ago

Yeah, that's probably what I would implement - send an informational error message 'too many subsriptions', then close the connections. thanks!

We should discuss this in https://www.w3.org/community/solid/wiki/Meetings#20190530_1000CEST

acoburn commented 5 years ago

At present there are two keywords involved in this interaction: sub and pub. At what point should we start to view this interaction as a "protocol" with formal semantics. (I would be very much in favor of this). Defining a specific protocol for this would allow a client to have a clearer idea of exactly how the interaction works, and it would establish a stronger contract between client and server. As it is, the JavaScript API for establishing a WebSocket is:

WebSocket(url [, protocols])

If this specification defines a solid protocol, this would be a way to formalize these interactions. Or would that be too much complexity/overhead for what we're trying to achieve?

michielbdejong commented 5 years ago

^ sorry, didn't want to downvote your proposal on its merits as such, you're right that there are more beautiful ways to design the protocol we have. But it's what we have, and I like that it's supersimple.

The reason I downvoted is just that I think that changing the websockets-pubsub protocol to something different but functionally equivalent (i.e., a 'mostly sideways change') would have a tiny benefit to us as Solid app developers, and a huge cost.

RubenVerborgh commented 5 years ago

I'm concerned that we are making medium changes to the spec here without sufficiently stepping back and thinking about the design.

This has all grown organically; no one has ever considered whether even the pub/sub mechanism is a good idea or whether there are standard alternatives. We are currently suggesting a fix on top of a hack.

Why don't we take a step back, do requirements engineering for the sockets, and then come back with a full solution instead of putting duct tape on duct tape?

michielbdejong commented 5 years ago

It's now implemented in IPS, but no plans (yet) to implement it in NSS. Will leave this as a proposed spec change.

michielbdejong commented 5 years ago

Do not merge unless NSS also implements this.