From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Peijnik Subject: Re: git smart protocol via WebSockets - feedback wanted Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:41:56 +0200 Message-ID: References: <7vpq9dobjo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 05 20:42:20 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sbyht-00023Q-0C for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:42:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755944Ab2FESmM (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:42:12 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:51441 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754861Ab2FESmL (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:42:11 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sbyhi-0001bI-RM for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:42:06 +0200 Received: from 178-190-4-245.adsl.highway.telekom.at ([178.190.4.245]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:42:06 +0200 Received: from stephan by 178-190-4-245.adsl.highway.telekom.at with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:42:06 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 178-190-4-245.adsl.highway.telekom.at User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 In-Reply-To: <7vpq9dobjo.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 06/05/2012 08:31 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > How does this compare with the smart-http support that tunnels the > git protocol over http (with some butchering)? To be honest, I didn't know smart-http support yet. Is that the approach introduced with git 1.6.6? If so, that approach uses multiple POST requests, meaning multiple TCP and HTTP connections need to be established, multiple requests processed, etc. The WebSocket approach uses a single HTTP connection which gets upgraded to a WebSocket. This WebSocket then allows the same communication to happen as with the ssh implementation. So in comparison there is possibly a lot less overhead and, in theory, the performance should be comparable to running the smart protocol over ssh. Personally I'd say the WebSocket approach is cleaner than the HTTP-POST approach. -- Stephan