Comments on: Unlimited free bandwidth!* (*Some limitations apply.)

By: jdw

jdw — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:56:20 +0000

In reply to SV. Good question, I'm not sure that's been tested. In theory it should work, though you would definitely want to try it out thoroughly before adopting it as a strategy. Some fussing with headers might be required. -jdw

By: SV

SV — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:46:42 +0000

Does the gzip compression also work the other way? If I’m serving only compressed files to save disk space, do you serve and cache the uncompressed files?

By: jdw

jdw — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 04:16:53 +0000

In reply to ACE. It does not. -jdw

By: ACE

ACE — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 04:06:44 +0000

does the automatic gzip compression require any setup?

By: Zack

Zack — Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:15:15 +0000

I’m not Kinak, but the improvement I am really jonesing for on the TLS front is a better interface to certificate management. I see that you’ve said on the member forum that integrated support for Let’s Encrypt is coming, and that’ll make me 100% happy, but probably not everyone wants to jump ship from their existing CAs; options for those people that are less manual and error-prone would be nice too.

By: Wizek

Wizek — Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:47:41 +0000

Nice! Thanks for the WebSocket support! I’ve been hoping for that one for a while!

By: jdw

jdw — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:28:29 +0000

In reply to Kinak. What progress are you looking forward to? Our TLS support is already excellent; it's well-supported, easier to set up, more reliable than ever, and requires no fighting with config files on your part (unless you want to bump the automatic A-rating from SSLLabs to an A+ by enabling strict transport security). What the beta offers is primarily scalability, so we have a viable answer to the question "What would happen if every member decided to activate TLS on all their sites tomorrow?" As with all parts of our service, we'll keep working to make it even better, but it's pretty darned good as-is. -jdw

By: Kinak

Kinak — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 23:05:38 +0000

Really looking forward to progress on the TLS front. Thanks for all your hard work!

By: jdw

jdw — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:53:45 +0000

In reply to Steve.

Node.js is probably the easiest — that’s what our demo site uses — but any language that we support that can implement WebSockets can be made to work. Someone is going to have a site here with WebSockets running in Haskell before you know it.

WebSockets support went live Sunday night and the NPM websockets module is already available in the white realm.

-jdw

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:47:10 +0000

Websockets – very nice. What server side language can we create the server code with? Example: Node.js

https://www.npmjs.com/package/nodejs-websocket