[erlang-questions] mochiweb vs. cowboy for websocket serevr

[Eric Pailleau]

Hi,
forgot to say. the table should indicate from which version the rfc is handle.

BTW it is a lack in Erlang OTP documentation : from which version a module/function is available ?
this would help to define the minimal erts/otp version, i.e minimal erl version a project needs.

a powerfull skill of eclipse when developping an Android app is to maintain autmatically the API version in the manifest, automagically, from class/method use. (Kostis, this could be a dialyzer killer feature  :-)   ....)


« Envoyé depuis mon mobile » Eric

Eric Pailleau <eric.pailleau@REDACTED> a écrit :

>Hi Loïc,
>
>glad to read this.
>I add this will generate a sane emulation between each developper team/community.
>regards.
>
>
>« Envoyé depuis mon mobile » Eric
>
>Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> a écrit :
>
>>On 01/11/2015 11:08 AM, Eric Pailleau wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> it is probably possible to find this, yes, there or there, but MHO, each webserver developper team should maintain a clear table on a web page for this.
>>
>>That's something I intend to fix from Cowboy 2 onward. I have made a 
>>wishlist so far (https://gist.github.com/essen/12eb360f0717911d94ce) and 
>>started noting down points from RFCs that Cowboy (will) support (e.g. 
>>https://github.com/ninenines/cowboy/blob/master/doc/src/specs/rfc7230_server.ezdoc). 
>>It will in time be a full RFC digest and each point will have a test.
>>
>>The one I link above is probably the biggest RFC, Cowboy only caring 
>>about header value syntax in many other RFCs.
>>
>>-- 
>>Loïc Hoguin
>>http://ninenines.eu
>_______________________________________________
>erlang-questions mailing list
>erlang-questions@REDACTED
>http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions