Colliding Comets: Battle of the Bayeux Part 4

by Michael CarterFebruary 15th, 2008

In part 4 of this series on Bayeux, Michael responds to Greg’s rebuttal from part 3.

Part 1: Greg Wilkins explains the need for Bayeux
Part 2: Michael Carter criticizes the current state of Bayeux
Part 3: Greg Wilkins responds to Michael Carter
Andrew Betts’ thoughts (from a related article)
Part 4: Michael Carter responds to Greg Wilkins
Part 5: Kris Zyp’s thoughts
Part 6: Alex Russell responds to Michael Carter
Part 7: Michael Carter responds to Alex Russell


I approached this dialogue initially by imagining an ideal Comet protocol, and then I pointed out how Bayeux differs from that protocol. Greg believes that Bayeux’s only flaw is a lack of documentation, and that if I fully understood Bayeux, I wouldn’t have any problems. While I certainly don’t pretend to possess the same knowledge as the authors of Bayeux, I think that this line of reasoning doesn’t adequately address my concerns, and so I will explain how and why. My first article was somewhat theoretical, as this one will be. But I will also take a look at specific statements from the Bayeux specification and explain how they relate to this discussion.

Framework or Specification

My main point in the section “Cost Without Benefit” in my previous article is that supporting the Bayeux specification costs developer resources, but most of the features of Bayeux are unnecessary for a Broadcast application. Greg replies, “But broadcast does need a very important feature of Bayeux: transport negotiation!” I concur, transport negotiation is very important, and our final standard should contain it. But pointing out one feature of Bayeux that broadcast applications would need isn’t sufficient to justify using the protocol when it is chock full of unnecessary features.

This point on its own might not be enough reason to rework Bayeux, but it represents an alarming trend in the rhetoric coming from Bayeux supporters. I’ve heard many times, as Greg put it, “Bayeux is not a framework, it is a specification.” And it makes good strategic sense to try to write a specification for a standard as opposed to a framework, as frameworks tend to fracture a community whereas standards can do the opposite.

But when defining a protocol, the designers must be exceptionally cautious of feature bloat. Every required piece of functionality is another hurdle to actually implementing the protocol. The first priority of a specification is to explain to developers how it should be implemented, whereas a framework’s first priority is to provide a slew of features in an easily understandable API. Frameworks are for developers-as-users whereas standards are for developers-as-developers. But while the Bayeux supporters want to call it a specification, many end-developers have gotten the impression that they should treat it like a framework.

In a previous musing I said that “The point of any standardization is to allow interoperation between moving parts in a system…[Bayeux] defines the separation between moving parts to occur at the network edges.” Bayeux’s domain, therefore, is those developers who are implementing the communication layer between the browser and the server. As a Comet server developer, I am the implicit target of Bayeux. Application developers on the other hand don’t care about the communication protocol. They only care about a framework—a convenient API with every feature they could want. This is very similar to the way in which web application developers want a framework like Django or Ruby on Rails, but don’t care about specifics of the HTTP communication protocol.

So which is Bayeux, a specification or a framework? As Greg said, they “don’t expect that many developers will implement Bayeux, unless they have some new idea, language, transport etc.” Besides the fact that we wouldn’t want them to re-implement Bayeux just because they thought of a new transport, I doubt a developer could even have some new idea without first fully understanding the specification, probably because they’d implemented either the server or client side previously. The long and short of it is that if a developer, like me, has a problem with Bayeux, the response is that it’s not really meant for a developer like me to implement. This is a dangerous precedent as it limits Bayeux’s developer base basically to the people who designed it, or developers with identical priorities and an identical set of most-likely use-cases.

The Bayeux authors are trying to skip the middle man and cater directly to end-users. Even though Bayeux’s implicit domain has nothing to do with application developers, the designers have gone out of their way to include feature unnecessary for basic HTTP push. These are framework features, and there has been a general understanding that these features mean that Bayeux is some kind of standard for the masses.

I don’t think this is necessarily an isolated phenomenon. In Greg’s article he seems to imply that we should actually treat Bayeux as a framework when he asks, “And how many of us really use all the features of the frameworks that we have at hand?” The answer is that we often don’t use all the features of a framework. But how about this for a contrasting question: And how many of us really use all the features of Internet Protocol? I certainly use each and every feature of Internet Protocol whenever I do anything on the internet, as do you, the reader, just by reading this article. That is because the designers of IP guarded very carefully against feature bloat, promising nothing but the bare essentials necessary for application/protocol designers to efficiently implement any functionality they required on top of IP. So instead of redefining a network stack from the ground up, the HTTP protocol just bases its communication on TCP and IP.

Bayeux is very clearly trying to play the role of a framework even though it is technically a specification. The result is that it’s a bad communication protocol and a bad framework. A good framework, after all, would have long ago published a standard API and worked out a method for third-party, client-side transport discovery. And a good communication protocol wouldn’t utilize publish and subscribe messages as communication primitives while forgetting to include basic reliability and message ordering guarantees. My entire previous article shows in depth exactly why Bayeux is a bad communication protocol, and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. It seems that the general mindset when defining Bayeux functionality has tended towards showing that a feature might be desirable in some situation. This is alarmingly similar to process we’d want when designing a framework, but hardly resembles the cold and rigorous approach of cutting down features when designing a communication protocol. If anything my critique is that Bayeux bites off far more than a single communication protocol could chew.


In the section “Cost and More Cost” I outlined a situation where the communication primitives established by Bayeux are actually a burden to support. My argument is that Bayeux lacks a simple peer messaging system, and building one on top of the publish/subscribe infrastructure will be a big performance hit. Greg clearly agrees with me, but offers the /service/* channels as a way around the problem. Unfortunately, there is a misunderstanding in what the server is, potentially because I say “server” where I mean “application server”.

A bit of history is of import: when I first approached Comet-style communication and began work on the Orbited project, I spent some time in the #cometd IRC channel where the authors of Bayeux coordinate their efforts. The major reason I avoided implementing Bayeux at that time was that there is no good provision for application <--> Bayeux server communication, aside from treating the application as a Bayeux client itself. The only other provision was to treat a Bayeux server like a framework and write the application as a hook into the Bayeux server. This required a complete Bayeux server implementation in the language of the developer’s choice, and precluded the use of modern frameworks like TurboGears, Rails, Django, and others. This wasn’t a problem for the designers of Bayeux though, because they were the ones who implemented the original Bayeux servers, and so they were able to hook any functionality they wanted directly into the server.

But for those of us treating Bayeux as a specification for a communication protocol and not a server framework, the only alternative was to have the application connect to the Bayeux server as a client itself. And this is exactly why I didn’t bring up the /service/* channel in my previous article: it only allows messaging between the Bayeux client and the Bayeux Server, not peer messaging between Bayeux clients, such as the application server and the browser. It doesn’t mitigate the problem in the slightest as there is still no way to efficiently send messages from the browser to the application over Bayeux except to implement peer messaging on top of the publish subscribe mechanism offered by Bayeux.

Greg does point out that I “correctly [identified] that there is unacceptable cost in having user specific channels for user specific messages.” But Bayeux’s solution with /service/* only half solves the problem, as there is absolutely no way for an application implemented outside of the Bayeux process to send a message directly to a client. So as-is, Bayeux imposes unacceptable performance costs. Until we have a better tool to solve this problem, applications should be implemented within the Bayeux process, as if the Bayeux server was a framework. I have noticed that Bayeux supporters seem to rarely assume that the application server is separate from the Bayeux server, such as Greg’s suggestion to just use the /service/* channels, because that’s probably just not how they think about the problem. Once again we have the protocol/framework dichotomy where the demands of each impact the other.

Greg isn’t really thinking about performance in the same way I am though. His proof that Bayeux performs well is that even if you don’t use Bayeux’s features, aside from its ability to push data, it only costs a request (or, as Kris points out in comments, several requests) to setup those unused features.

As much as I am interested in counting the pennies and saving some real money on bandwidth over the years, I’m more interested in being able to scale my solution to many concurrent users. My point is that Bayeux offers a publish/subscribe framework that has many challenges to scaling. I believe there are some good approaches to scaling a publish subscribe network, but the constraints in such a system are at least an order of magnitude greater than those in peer-messaging. By implementing peer-messaging on top of Bayeux we need to first accept the constraints of publish/subscribe. This is, simply put, backwards. It would be like implementing a one-time search algorithm in a language that required all arrays to be stored in sorted order. Instead of incurring an O(n) cost for the search, we incur an O(nlogn) cost for the sort and the search, when we didn’t even need a sorted list at all.

An Unrealistic Agenda

One advantage of my proposed layered approach to Comet is that the lower tiers make no provision for browser -> server communication. There are many ways to accomplish this, and existing application developers already use them without problems. I was very clear on this point in my previous article: “The worst thing we can do is use the promise of Comet as a carrot, and the Bayeux standard as a stick, and try to force developers to adopt our way of communication with the HTTP server.”

But still Greg states that “if Bayeux is successful in weaning developers off XHR (and wrappers), of getting them thinking of messaging (instead of request/response)… then Bayeux will have done its job.”

I need to be emphatic here that this is not Bayeux’s job. And if it is Bayeux’s job, then adopting Bayeux is a strategic catastrophe for the Comet community. As I previously said, it puts us directly at odds with “millions of libraries and billions of lines of code geared towards supporting query-string encoded client -> server communication as either a form submission or an XHR request.” In fact, I’d go as far as to say that it puts us at odds with the HTTP specification and all of those who support that standard.

The lack of real-time applications is due to developers not knowing how to push data from the server to the browser. Comet versus request/response is not a dichotomy we want to create, because we’ll lose. A layered approach to Comet would allow some basic push capabilities at a lower level, thus allowing developers to choose whichever upstream communication model they want. But it still would provide a good platform to reform the current messaging paradigm at a higher level. Bayeux could very well use the publish/subscribe model, provided there was a lower-level option for developers who simply were not interested.

In short, it makes strategic sense for the Comet standard to closely resemble and interoperate with current standards. We want to be saying, “But Comet is basically HTTP, not some new, strange standard.” Then we’ll have a much easier time gaining widespread adoption.


The extent of Greg Wilkins’ arguments in his first article is that specifications can solve many problems, and Bayeux is a specification, so therefore Bayeux can solve many problems. He puts a lot of stock in the idea that Bayeux is ideal because it solves the problem of multi-frame Comet operation, also known as the 2 connection limit problem. But the reality is that Bayeux has at best the most minimal support for overcoming this problem. Section 8 of the Bayeux specification describes “Multi frame operation”. All it says is that the Bayeux server or client should set a cookie as a marker that a particular client already has a connection open to a particular server. Then, if a second connection is necessary, one of the two should fall back to polling. Here is the exact content that describes how a client should handle multi-frame operation:

8.2 Client Multi frame handling

It is RECOMMENDED that Bayeux client implementations use client side persistence or cookies to detect multiple instances of Bayeux clients running within the same HTTP client. Once detected, the user MAY be offered the option to disconnect all but one of the clients. It MAY be possible for client implementations to use client side persistence to share a Bayeux client instance.

It’s very possible that the Bayeux authors have some great ideas about this, but those ideas haven’t yet made it into the publicly published standard where I can read it. As-is, the whole section is mostly a big hand-wave. There is no explanation on how to detect connections across domains. What if I’m connected to ten different Comet servers? I can’t think of any “client side persistence” mechanism that would allow clients served from different domains to all store and read data from the same place, much less work in all major browsers. Furthermore, without the exact description of what data should be stored, all of those Bayeux connections would necessarily need to be the same version of the same client. What’s the point of the standard if we all have to use the same client?

I understand this is a hard problem, and even Greg admits at the end of his first article that “the solutions for multi-tab are still very rudimentary”. But his entire first article does seem to be directed towards solving the two connection limit, when in reality he only briefly alludes to how Bayeux solves the problem: he suggests that publish/subscribe and transport negotiation may be helpful. I flatly disagree with the suggestion that publish/subscribe has any bearing on the problem. On the other hand, transport negotiation is a good idea that will allow connections to degrade to polling. This is a definite strength of Bayeux, and I think our final standard should have transport negotiation.


That brings us to the issue of defining transports, or rather the lack of specification in that area. Greg shares with us that

[Bayeux] recognizes that we are not all going to agree on long polling or streaming, or on stopping innovation on new transports. So transport is negotiable in Bayeux.

Upon close inspection, the current Bayeux standard specifies how a few transports should work, but provides no provision for integrating new transports with the specification. Transport negotiation just defines a method by which the client and server agree on a transport, but says nothing about the API a transport should support. Indeed, I can invent a telepathic transport, but I have to then guess as to how it fits into the Bayeux client. If we ask the Bayeux authors about it, we’ll get the response that “These are concerns that framework and server developers can innovate, differentiate and compete about.” But its not acceptable for the Bayeux authors to be even slightly vague with this crucial section of the specification. We need to know exactly what JavaScript API a transport should have, and how that transport can identify itself to the JavaScript Bayeux client. Without this information, we are left to a free-for-all of inventing “competing” methods of identifying new transports in our frameworks. We could all just assume the Dojo implementation as a model for Bayeux, but then we might as well also throw the written specification out and just agree that Bayeux is Dojo.

To JavaScript (or not to JavaScript)

Bayeux recognizes that we are not all going to agree on the same language on the server or the client.

Indeed, the purpose of standards are for platform and language interoperability. But, Bayeux actually makes a pretty big mistake in not standardizing JavaScript as the client language. Whether Bayeux should be a communication protocol or not, it should at the very least be for JavaScript clients, and we should also define a standard API. As it stands, if I write my application for Dojo’s Bayeux, but then someone else creates a new Bayeux client, I couldn’t just switch over to the new client because they would likely not be interoperable. By standardizing the wire protocol and not bothering to standardize the API we make it easy for clients to interoperate with servers, but not for clients to interoperate with applications. The Bayeux standard makes it unfortunately clear, though, that such an API is outside of its realm, as it is a wire protocol intended for browsers and non-browsers alike:

While HTTP is the predominant transport protocol used on the internet, it is not intended that it will be the only transport for Bayeux. Other transports that support a request/response paradigm may be used. However this document assumes HTTP for reasons of clarity.


The majority of Bayeux clients will be implemented in JavaScript…

Of course, Bayeux does provide an Unconnected Operation for message dispatch:

OPTIONALLY, messages can be sent without a prior handshake… This pattern is often useful when implementing non-browser clients for Bayeux servers. These clients often simply wish to address messages to other clients which the Bayeux server may be servicing, but do not wish to listen for events themselves.

This provision is a false hope though, as it only allows synchronous message dispatch from external servers because it relies on HTTP. A much saner protocol would allow us to dump as many message requests as we wanted without receiving any of the responses. We’d simply put an ID on each request and the server would respond as it was able. Without this provision, throughput would be severely limited. If you opened 10 connections to the Bayeux server from your app, and each one had a round-trip latency of 200ms, the most messages you could dispatch would be 50/second. You can easily perform this calculation once you realize that the round-trip latency directly affects throughput. The number of messages you can deliver each second is just one second divided by the round-trip latency. So with 200 ms latency you can deliver only 5 messages a second.

At the very least I think we should stop pretending that Bayeux is anything more than a collection of browser-based JavaScript methods of push.

Data format

Bayeux recognizes that not everybody is a JSON fan, and while the content of the Bayeux messages is specified in JSON, there is no requirement that they are sent as JSON, and implementation of XML (e.g. BOSH), binary, or telepathic transports would be welcome.

This statement is very misleading—the extent of what it says is that any data format can be encoded in any other data format. We can invent telepathic transports, but we still have to encode some part of the communication in the JSON format. Yes, the application can encode the payload as an XML document, but it’s still re-encoded in JSON for transport. See section 1.4.2 of the Bayeux standard:

conforming Bayeux servers and clients MUST still conform to the semantics of the JSON messages outlined in this document.


I’ve outlined many reasons in these two articles as to why Bayeux isn’t ready. Standardization is of the utmost importance, and I think the people behind Bayeux have made great strides towards creating something useful. But the supposed goal of Bayeux seems in reality to be that of a framework, not a protocol. If this is the case, then the Bayeux authors would do well to rework their standard into an API proposal. This would provide many more benefits in line with their goals. If, on the other hand, they really do want Bayeux to be a communication protocol, then they should get serious and drop any efforts to target application developers.

Overall though, there has clearly been a lack of perspective in the design process of Bayeux. It is very easy to start optimizing towards a particular use case, and for many projects that is the right and obvious approach. For a standardized protocol though, the designers must be extraordinarily careful that they create a technology that is robust enough to withstand the test of time. If they do not, then a whole new set of de-facto standards will evolve, ultimately displacing the original standard. If we tackle this problem now then we can avoid multiple years of setback.

The only reasonable approach to this problem is layering the protocol. This is not something that can happen on top of or underneath the Bayeux protocol as is. Layering doesn’t mean you adopt a monolithic standard for Jabber over HTTP (see BOSH), and then put another monolithic standard on top of it. This is one idea Greg puts forth, and indeed it is layering, but what’s the point? You get none of the advantages of having flexible, discrete layers as I outlined in my previous post.

Every single concern I’ve brought up can be solved by simply defining multiple standards with different domains. Bayeux is a perfectly reasonable high-level protocol or framework API, provided we jettison all the specific communication mechanisms it defines. After all, splitting the framework-like features of Bayeux away from the communication protocol features is the only way that Bayeux could possibly satisfy Comet server developers (like me) and application developers who want to use Comet. The crux of the issue is actually pretty simple, as I discuss in Should Bayeux be a Communication protocol?. Pay close attention though, because I don’t actually believe we should have only a protocol, or only an API standard. Rather, Bayeux is trying to look like both, but it should make a choice and leave room for the other. Given Bayeux’s feature set and the general philosophy of its creators, I suspect its place is that of an API standard.

7 Responses to “Colliding Comets: Battle of the Bayeux Part 4”

  1. Martin Tyler Says:

    Interesting post Michael,

    The only part I really disagree with, if I understood you correctly, is the part about not replacing client to server messages. I understand where you are coming from in that there are many existing ways to accomplish this that many developers are familiar with already - but if the application requires bi-directional messages and those messages are going to be in the domain of the comet application then it seems odd to have to use a different system to send messages to the server and then have something in the server to parse that (yes there’s lots of existing libraries etc to do that) and pass it on to your comet app.

    I think this is related to another point of yours about there not being any defined server side API for creating your application - as you said, not all comet applications are purely clients. If a server side API is provided then you would have to handle sending messages using this comet api and receiving messages through some other, albeit existing and mature, API.

    Some of our customers faced this problem years ago when they first started doing trading online. They would use our products to send prices out to clients, but then use traditional methods for sending trade requests back to the server. This meant they ended up with a circular flow of data, which initially made sense because they were familiar with the client and server technology to do this, but as they gained confidence in our products and comet type technology in general they moved over to using us for both parts of the system - this meant a single API on the client and a single API on the server. The messages themselves are then more consistant too rather than one being a structured callback object and another using a different api to construct a query string.

    However, I can see situations where your way may be benificial. If your application is a mix of ‘live’ comet data and more traditional database/applicationserver data then it might not make sense on the client to use two different APIs to send data to the server. Similarly on the server side if your application is a mix of realtime and static data that needs to be combined somehow, then receiving all client messages in the same way and then processing them accordingly may make sense.

    So to me it comes down to the application and as always ‘the best tool(s) for the job’

  2. Michael Carter Says:

    Martin: I don’t think we actually disagree — I too think that many users would benefit greatly from a messaging API other than request/response. My main argument is this is not a good fit for *all* projects, and thus we should strive to provide a solution that is more flexible. A layered approach can easily provide both a solid bi-direction messaging API, and a good uni-directional comet API. I believe we can do better than Bayeux and provide a set of tools rather than a single tool so that developers can actually choose the best tool for the job.

    I think it may be short sighted to suggest that all development of a Comet application happens within the Comet server. There is a huge untapped resource of developers who have been trained with synchronous web application frameworks. A real coup would be to provide them a scalable solution that fits well with their current mode of development. With the Orbited project we’ve found that a circular flow actually makes a great deal of sense and is the only real chance at integrating with popular external frameworks.

  3. Martin Tyler Says:

    Yes that makes sense for a lot of applications. My experience is more with applications that integrate with systems well behind the comet server - eg data feeds and trading systems, where the comet/messaging side of things makes up the majority of the interaction between client and server. There is a clear seperation of responsibilities between realtime data/messaging and the ‘website’ that uses it.

    However, I can see that with a lot of websites the realtime data might be a smaller part of the overall system and more integrated with existing app server type frameworks

  4. Kris Zyp Says:

    “We want to be saying, “But Comet is basically HTTP, not some new, strange standard.” Then we’ll have a much easier time gaining widespread adoption.”
    Yes, I agree!

  5. GregWilkins Says:


    you appear to be debating yourself on this one, as you’ve put up lots of straw men and then argued against them.

    “Greg believes that Bayeux’s only flaw is a lack of documentation”. Rubbish, it has lots of flaws and I’m often the first to point them out.

    You say: “if a developer, like me, has a problem with Bayeux, the response is that it’s not really meant for a developer like me to implement.”. The cometd project is very open to feedback from both developers and implementors. If developers have problems with the cometd implementation of Bayeux, then we are very very please to have their input and have already done at least 2 major refactors as a result of input from implementors and developers.

    You mix up the flaws of cometd (the framework) with those of Bayeux (the specification).
    The cometd project has not specified a standard API, because I don’t think any of us yet have the experience of enough use-cases to come up with a standard API or perfect transport. Bayeux has the semantics to solve the the 2 connection limit, but the cometd implementations have so far only used this in the simplest way. Thus I emphasis that it is the semantic of Bayeux (ie pub/sub messaging) that is important and that we will continue gain the experience needed to work towards standard APIs, improved transports and mature implementations.

    But then you appear to have a problem with publish/subscribe messaging and believe that the issues we face in comet can be solved by simply mechanisms closer to HTTP. You appear to believe that bayeux or pub/sub somehow prevents you from submitting to an existing form handler? This is entirely not the case an I have often used Bayeux only for the server to client delivery and used other techniques for client to server. There are some tricks with this approach and long term I think it is best to move to a uniform transport, but it is certainly possible to do and a very valid approach to allow use of existing software.

    I believe you are saying that a layer of “peer messaging” would be a vastly superior semantic on which to base comet protocols, standards and frameworks. This would be great if it were so, but I do not see how peer messaging can allow multiple frameworks from multiple components from potentially multiple frames, tabs and windows to share the 2 connections. HTTP just does not have the semantics for sharing so must abstract away from it to solve the problems I outlined in my initial article.

    I don’t know what you are saying about the performance of Bayeux being limited to 5 messages per second? That is a total straw man! Bayeux allows messages to be batched into HTTP requests and responses, so many messages can be transported over each HTTP request and response. Moreover, there is nothing in Bayeux the protocol that stops the use of HTTP pipelining to improve throughput. There is something in Cometd the framework to prevent pipelining, because with current browser implementations it is impossible to prevent the stupid browser pipelining a request behind a long poll, as you can’t pick your connection to use for pipelining. As for opening 10 connections - that is exactly the sort of thing that Bayeux is designed to stop you doing and is exactly the sort of illegal HTTP that simple peer messaging would encourage.

    I really don’t get why you keep saying Bayeux in monolithic. It is most certainly not made from one stone, one language, one framework or one API.

    Finally you say: “Every single concern I’ve brought up can be solved by simply defining multiple standards with different domains.”. Well please do! This has been a most uneven debate as it has been an implemented specification with pragmatic concerns of real world deployment versus unimplemented ideals supported with wouldn’t it be nice if…. So please do simply define your layers. If you do come up with a great transport layer, or application API, then you will really see how un-monolithic Cometd is as we adopt your good work and use it to improve our Bayeux implementations.

  6. Michael Carter Says:

    My main argument is that a communication protocol is for comet server/client developers, wheras an api is for application developers. While additional api features may not be a problem for application developers (they can just ignore them), it is a problem to include features in a protocol that aren’t widely used, because they all must be adopted in order for a server or client to be compliant. The point of a specification is to make it easy for developers to implement the protocol. It is unacceptable to suggest that not many people will implement Bayeux so its okay that its complicated. We should be striving for a simple standard that provides *exactly* what we need.

    You are correct about Pipelining, I hadn’t thought of that. It would require that you implemented a http client library that supported pipelining, and the Bayeux server would also need to support it. The big problem I see is working out a way to acknowledge message deliveries. The problem is too complicated to discuss here though so I’ll give some time to it in a later post.

    Keep in mind that I am not trying to suggest that the work you and the other developers have done thus far is unwelcome, rather that I think it can benefit from some outside perspective, and I am attempting to contribute that perspective in these articles. For the time being though, I have to look at either the official Bayeux specification, or the current Cometd implementations. I have no other sources to go on, and thus my arguments are based on the existing technology rather than the future features that the Bayeux authors see planned.

  7. Marcus Cavanaugh » Blog Archive » Bayeux: Tightly Coupled Says:

    [...] adoption, it is a bad idea to promote a full-stack protocol which doesn’t properly address fundamental issues in its design. (I have only touched on publish/subscribe in this post, but other issues have been [...]

Copyright 2015 Comet Daily, LLC. All Rights Reserved