Hacker News Reader

Comment by HumblyTossed | Hacker News Reader

ASCII table codes 1,2,3 & 4 pretty simple to use.

Sure, in principle. Someone already mentioned binary data, then you come up with a framing scheme and get to write protocol documentation, but why? What's the benefit?

Simplicity.

You misspelled “bugs and maintenance nightmare”

Now solve for encryption, authorization, authentication...

WS(S) has in the box solutions for a lot of these... on top of that, application gateways, distribution, failover etc. You get a lot of already solved solutions in the box, so to speak. If you use raw sockets, now you have to implement all of these things yourself, and you aren't gaining much over just using WSS.

"Now write an application that is so generic it solves every problem ever!"

You don't always _need_ those things. Right? Right.

Not if you're passing binary data

Even beyond that: the ASCII delimiter control codes are perfectly valid UTF-8 (despite not being printable), so using them for in-band signaling is a recipe for pain on arbitrary UTF-8 data.

If you know your data is UTF-8, then bytes 0xFE and 0xFF are guaranteed to be free. Strictly speaking, 0xC0, 0xC1, and 0xF5 through 0xFD also are, but the two top values are free even if you are very lax and allow overlong encodings as well as codepoints up to 2³² − 1.

I think it would probably be better to invest in a proper framing design than trying to poke holes in UTF-8.

(This is true regardless of UTF-8 -- in-band encodings are almost always brittle!)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com