Progress of work on WebSocket?

Hi all,

It seems that websocket will not finally implemented (feedback://showreport?report_id=18354).
Why this decision? You have however already worked hard on it!
and it was planned for a long time.

[quote=205679:@olivier vidal]Hi all,

It seems that websocket will not finally implemented (feedback://showreport?report_id=18354).
Why this decision? You have however already worked hard on it!
and it was planned for a long time.[/quote]

What do you mean ? On the contrary :

===================
Greg O’Lone on Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:31 PM

This feature has been scheduled for development.
?Status changed from ‘Implemented’ to ‘Scheduled’.
?Report reopened.

Greg O’Lone on Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:16 AM

This case has been reviewed by our testing staff.

If I understand right, on Oct 30, last year, WebSocket was scheduled for development, and last Friday, it was reviewed by the testing staff. Which to me implies that something was actually ready enough to be tested.

That is a good sign ; it means we can expect WebSocket in a future version of Xojo.

Language barrier ? “Reviewed” means examiné in French. Nothing else.

Hi Michel,

You may be right, but I’m not sure.

For me, the steps for a feature request are “needs review,” “reviewed”, “scheduled”, “implemented” (if accepted).

This sequence of events typically means the feature is no longer scheduled for development. But the case is not closed, which means it is something they would like to get to, just not right now. What we don’t know is why. I wouldn’t read too much into it. This kind of response is exactly why Xojo prefers to be non-committal.

Thank you Thom. Maybe they want to focus first on http2… But this feedback (feedback://showreport?report_id=38227) also is not on the schedule.

Thom is correct, all this change means is that it isn’t on any specific engineer’s plate right now.

What fiasco this implementation! 4 years of waiting, several unsuccessful trials, our customers waiting… And http side, no http 1.1, no work in progress apparently on http2. We always work with a protocol of 1996. :frowning: