WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED WONTFIX
35571
WebSocket bufferedAmount doesn't include framing overhead
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35571
Summary
WebSocket bufferedAmount doesn't include framing overhead
Fumitoshi Ukai
Reported
2010-03-02 03:08:27 PST
WebSocket spec draft says WebSocket bufferedAmount doesn't include framing overhead incurred by the protocol.
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/commit-watchers-whatwg.org/2010/003971.html
Attachments
Patch
(4.65 KB, patch)
2010-03-02 20:53 PST
,
Fumitoshi Ukai
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Patch
(10.32 KB, patch)
2010-03-05 02:15 PST
,
Fumitoshi Ukai
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Show Obsolete
(1)
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Fumitoshi Ukai
Comment 1
2010-03-02 20:53:56 PST
Created
attachment 49876
[details]
Patch
Alexey Proskuryakov
Comment 2
2010-03-03 14:20:14 PST
Comment on
attachment 49876
[details]
Patch Isn't 0x00 allowed to be inside of message text? 0xff can never occur in UTF-8, but 0x00 can be there. It seems that if bufferedAmount() is going to parse the buffer, then it should have a state machine, and also ASSERT that it knows about the current frame type. I don't know how to reasonably implement that, since the buffer won't necessarily start on frame boundary. But also, this seems quite slow, perhaps it would be better to store data size separately (again, it can be a challenge to update properly). Or even to try and get the spec changed back per implementor feedback. Do we have a test checking how null characters go over WebSocket?
Fumitoshi Ukai
Comment 3
2010-03-03 18:41:34 PST
(In reply to
comment #2
)
> (From update of
attachment 49876
[details]
) > Isn't 0x00 allowed to be inside of message text? 0xff can never occur in UTF-8, > but 0x00 can be there.
Oh, i missed that case.
> It seems that if bufferedAmount() is going to parse the buffer, then it should > have a state machine, and also ASSERT that it knows about the current frame > type. I don't know how to reasonably implement that, since the buffer won't > necessarily start on frame boundary. > > But also, this seems quite slow, perhaps it would be better to store data size > separately (again, it can be a challenge to update properly). Or even to try > and get the spec changed back per implementor feedback.
Yes, I prefer previous spec. I'll ask the spec changed back.
> Do we have a test checking how null characters go over WebSocket?
Not yet. I'll add.
Fumitoshi Ukai
Comment 4
2010-03-05 02:15:02 PST
Created
attachment 50093
[details]
Patch
Alexey Proskuryakov
Comment 5
2010-03-05 12:25:57 PST
I'm not sure if we want to make this change even if we can't get the spec changed back.
Alexey Proskuryakov
Comment 6
2010-03-29 14:48:41 PDT
Comment on
attachment 50093
[details]
Patch This doesn't currently need review, removing the flag. The behavior of bufferedAmount is still being actively discussed on whatwg mailing list.
Takeshi Yoshino
Comment 7
2013-04-08 23:03:20 PDT
The patch is obsolete (for Hixie 75 style framing). Needs discussion on the spec. Maybe reopening
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9083
if necessary. Marking this bug as WONTFIX for now.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug