torch VS webtransport

Now, after this comment of mine I've been pointed to Torch and Ecto's Gen.Migration, the two looking super useful. Good points. I also started to write my CRUD admin dashboard for Common Lisp, let's see how this goes…

Psst... Elixir has this too :)

https://github.com/mojotech/torch

There's also Torch.

There are good libraries around authentication and authorization. There was at one point an analogue to ActiveAdmin, but it looks to be a dead project now. I generally discourage the use of those kinds of interfaces but if you must, this is more current: https://github.com/mojotech/torch

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think p2p-webtransport was superseded by "webtransport" (https://github.com/w3c/webtransport). Supposedly, the webtransport design should be flexible enough to support p2p even though focus is the traditional server<>client.

> No.

Thanks for your insight.

It seems you need to urgently reach out to the people working on WebTransport. You seem to know better and their documentation contradicts and refutes your assertion.

https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/blob/main/explainer.md

WebTransport is now enabled by default and will be going to release with 114. As the original Explainer notes, it enables multiple use-cases that are hard or impossible to handle without it, especially for Gaming and live streaming. It covers cases that are problematic for alternative mechanisms, such as WebSockets. Built on top of HTTP3 (HTTP2 support will be coming later). The current implementation in Firefox is passing 505 out of 565 Web-Platform Tests.

WebTransport is still an emerging technology. As of November 2022, WebTransport is a draft specification with W3C, and there’s always a chance that aspects related to how it works may change.

Sort of. The browser will re-use the connection if you have a bunch of resources in the HTML. When rendering it sees that it needs 2 images and 3 javascript files from the same server, so it pipelines all of those. But for requests initiated from javascript, you're going to get a new connection for each one unless you're using a library that implements the long-polling hack. SocketIO can use the long-polling hack as a fallback if websockets is not supported. HTTP/2 (formerly SPDY) gets part of the way to replacing websockets, but it's not a synchronous link. Only the client can send messages to the server and the server can only respond to those message (with websockets, either side can send messages once the connection is open). FWIW, less than 50% of websites use HTTP/2. HTTP/3's webtransport looks like it could replace websockets, but it also looks like it'll live along side websockets.

If it's streaming data like dashboard statistics the new WebTransport API might be a much better base: https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/blob/main/explainer.md

Are you guys looking into the Web Transport protocol for the future? Right now you have to tunnel the websocket connections over http2 and it will probably be the same for http3 afaik.

I know there is this work in progress (https://w3c.github.io/webtransport/) and websockets are probably fine for a long time but sooner or later (unless there is an update to websockets) it will probably be faster to just do normal http requests and listen on server sent events.

What are your thoughts for Liveview for the future? Will it forever stay on websockets or would you be open to change the underlying technology if / when new stuff becomes available?