Hi, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Pavel Rappo <pavel.ra...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> On 13 Jun 2016, at 12:14, Simone Bordet <simone.bor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Close should definitely *not* "jump ahead of the queue", it should be >> sent after queued stuff has been sent. > > Why is that?
Because contrary to ping, the specification does not say "as soon as possible" but: "An endpoint MAY delay sending a Close frame until its current message is sent (for instance, if the majority of a fragmented message is already sent, an endpoint MAY send the remaining fragments before sending a Close frame)." > Shouldn't we treat this as an implementation specific detail? I > mean Close, Ping and Pong are control messages. They are differ from Text and > Binary ones. > > If we specify this straight away, we're closing the ability for Close to > behave > like this. Are you sure this kind of Close behaviour is *never* needed? > Meanwhile it's easy to note in the API that if one wants to *force* order then > sendClose should be chained through CSs. It should be easy, especially taking > into account Close is the last message sent by a client. True :) -- Simone Bordet http://bordet.blogspot.com --- Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are, to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability, the implementation technique must be flawless. Victoria Livschitz
