Hacker News Reader

You don't sound smart for mocking the idea that a 8-exabyte message in a communication protocol is "big enough", you sound like you're mindlessly parroting ideas you don't fully understand. Yes, 8 exabytes is enough for a single message, and always will be. TCP works on "messages" (packets) in the kilobyte range, for comparison. Communication protocol packet sizes aren't equal to the amount of data the communication protocol can send.

View on HN

The argument FOR 63 bit message sizes was that you could effectively turn the message based protocol into a stream, except, unfortunately, the "stream" has a limit even if it seems plenty big enough now.

Personally I wouldn't have included the 63 bit message size.

What's the point? What's the difference between a stream of messages, and a stream of bytes? Nothing.

The difference is that with a stream of websocket messages every so often you need to deal with the framing. With a stream of bytes you don't. This precludes the use case that was the basis of the argument for 63 byte messages if you ever have to 'stream' a 'message' that needs to be longer... Sure you can send it as multiple fragments but then you can't do the 'here's a file handle, read the stream' thing that was proposed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com