[Development] Development Digest, Vol 23, Issue 123

[Shane Kearns]

If you wanted to access a websocket service from native c++ or from QML
javascript, it would be quite hard to use webkit's implementation.
I expect you'd have to invoke some javascript inside the webkit engine to
do the request for you and get a result.

Websocket is an unpleasant workaround to the current state where many users
can only make outbound connections on TCP port 443, which prevents the TCP
ports being used as intended for multiplexing.


On 29 August 2013 00:51, Richard Gerd Kuesters <richard at humantech.com.br>wrote:

> **
>
> Thanks Kurt :)
>
> I've got some time today reading Qt 5.1.1 (and its Webkit) source code.
> What I found was a big mess :)
>
> I understand now that your implementation is valid, and I think it should
> continue as is until further notice. Unfortunately, there is already a
> websocket client implementation in Qt source code, in Webkit, provided by
> Google. I made some tests today and any call on Webkit using "wss*:\/\/" is
> not available to QNetwork, and ... Man, it would be a very, very huge
> effort to do it "in a flash". Even the most experienced C++ programmer
> wouldn't do it overnight, as you said.
>
> That brought me, otherwise, to the ultimate question: is the Qt community
> ready to start thinking about ripping this off the Webkit's webcore? If so,
> I'll be glad to help, somehow. // FYK, I just realized how intense your
> work was today, about 5 PM (local time), when I realized how much the
> Webkit code is a mess. A real, *real* mess; and I think that's why Shane
> (and other users) think your work must not stop. Now, it includes me :)
>
> Sorry if I made my assumptions just on top of Webkit, it is simply the
> module I use the most. I thought Qt was a little more uniform (assuming
> what they are requiring from you to make your websocket implementation
> initially an addon). I was terribly wrong :)
>
> Keep up your good work, I'm glad someone is carrying this with such
> enthusiasm!! :)
>
>
>
> My best regards,
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
> Em 2013-08-28 19:46, Kurt Pattyn escreveu:
>
>
>  On 29 Aug 2013, at 00:21, development-request at qt-project.org wrote:
>
>  *From: *Richard Gerd Kuesters <richard at humantech.com.br>
> *Subject: **Re: [Development] [Feature Request] Websockets*
> *Date: *28 Aug 2013 19:28:11 GMT+02:00
> *To: *development at qt-project.org
>
> A couple of things got me thinking about the WebSocket implementation:
>
> 2. I believe that a websocket client would be directly attached to this
> network behaviour; it makes no sense to have a "headless" websocket in Qt -
> why not use a conventional socket? I think it might be useful, but just in
> some special cases. Other thing is: as I was looking into webkit source
> code, it already has a websocket client implementation. That brings another
> question: why is it there, after all? Why not in the network core?
>
> Hi Richard, this subject has been touched by Shane already. Indeed, you
> are right that this should be integrated into the QtNetwork module. But, a
> web socket is not just a socket, it is a tcp socket that is upgraded, after
> a handshake to a web socket. According to Shane, it is not that easy to
> integrate this into the current code.
> It has been decided, to put this code into the playground, so that
> 1. it at least integrates nicely with the Qt infrastructure
> 2. it is thoroughly reviewed and tested
> 3. we can wait and see what the demand is for this
> I can understand that turning the network module upside down to add some
> feature, is not something that is done overnight.
> Eventually, it can become an add-on or an integral part of the network
> module.
>
>  3. About the websocket server: it is, in fact, a new implementation for
> Qt.
>
> Yes, it is. Depending on how 'high' Qt wants to evolve, I don't see a
> reason why it wouldn't fit. Personally, I see it as an opportunity,
> especially for embedded devices that are more and more controlled via web
> browsers (at least, that is what I am using it for). Having a web socket
> server in there, could dramatically enhance the possibilities (monitoring,
> notifications, aso). But then there is of course node.js also.
>
>
> I'm not trying to be a pain in the a**, just the devil's advocate, random
> thoughts on the direction this intend to go.
>
>  It doesn't hurt. Discussion is sane, and questions are for free.
> Kurt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20130909/be1c3c63/attachment.html>