# Module proposal: BOSH **URL:** \ **Category:** NGINX\ **Created:** [August 7, 2008, 6:41am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250 "2008-08-07T06:41:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2008, 6:41am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/1 "2008-08-07T06:41:30Z")
After much headache with Ejabberd and some internal discussions, we talked about Nginx supporting the BOSH protocol. This would allow simple creation of scalable instant message systems and anything else that requires stateless connections to act statefully. > **[Bosh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOSH)** > > Bosh or BOSH may refer to: Nginx would hold 2 client connections and create a persistent connection to upstream servers. To even begin to make this possible, Nginx would need to support persistent connections to upstreams. What is the status of that feature? Its been listed on the feature request page in the wiki for a while. Anyone interested in seeing this? ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2008, 6:50am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/2 "2008-08-07T06:50:17Z")
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Adam M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)wrote: > feature? Its been listed on the feature request page in the wiki for a > while. > > Anyone interested in seeing this? yes! -alex ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2008, 8:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/3 "2008-08-07T08:00:25Z")
On 8/6/08, Adam M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Anyone interested in seeing this? i don’t think i’d be using it for quite some time but it does sound cool and yet another thing nginx can excel in. ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2008, 8:49am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/4 "2008-08-07T08:49:31Z")
Adam M. ha scritto: > After much headache with Ejabberd Can you give more detail? Thanks. > […] Manlio P. ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2008, 11:40am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/5 "2008-08-07T11:40:34Z")
I can obviously see how clever a lot of it is, but am I the only person who finds all this Comet/Bayeux/BOSH/Javascript “TCP sockets”/ etc stuff slightly unsettling? If you push and bend (e.g.) HTTP to do all this stuff it was never intended to do, won’t it, and all the infrastructure supporting it, eventually just break? OK, so there’s Jetty and nginx can handle loads of keepalives and so on and so forth, but … If people want bidirectional comms with browsers, if they want publish/ subscribe mechanisms, wouldn’t all this work by very clever people be better directed towards getting a sensible security infrastructure in place to allow listening sockets in client sandboxes, rather than building ever bigger wrappers with sticky tape and bits of string? \ ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/6 "2008-08-07T18:59:01Z")
A listening socket on the client isn’t going to really work because of firewalls and other network nastiness. And HTTP is the preferred method for this kind of thing because it works on browsers without modifying them. Assuming a new standard were made, it would be a good number of years before the browsers that most people use would support them, so the standard would be useless anyway, whereas http works now. ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2008, 7:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/7 "2008-08-07T19:00:46Z")
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:36 PM, Adam M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)wrote: > feature? Its been listed on the feature request page in the wiki for a > while. > > Anyone interested in seeing this? yes, this would be super awesome! +1 ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2008, 10:13am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/8 "2008-08-11T10:13:19Z")
Awesome if have! Regards, Du Song ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/9 "2008-08-12T15:53:06Z")
Adam M. wrote: > Nginx would need to support persistent connections to upstreams. What is the > status of that feature? Its been listed on the feature request page in the > wiki for a while. I would be very interested to see support for persistent connections to upstreams, and the company I’m working for would be willing to (co)sponsor such a feature. I already contacted Evan M. about this, but he doesn’t have enough time to pick this up currently. Anyone else capable of and willing to pick this up? ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2008, 4:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/10 "2008-08-12T16:08:54Z")
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Spil G. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Adam M. wrote: > > > Nginx would need to support persistent connections to upstreams. What is the > > status of that feature? Its been listed on the feature request page in the > > wiki for a while. > > I would be very interested to see support for persistent connections to > upstreams, and the company I’m working for would be willing to > (co)sponsor such a feature. I already contacted Evan M. about this, > but he doesn’t have enough time to pick this up currently. Anyone else > capable of and willing to pick this up? My company is also willing to add to the bounty for persistent connection support to upstreams, notably memcached. I simply do not have the time. Cheers Kon ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 10:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/11 "2008-10-09T10:57:47Z")
Adam M. wrote: > is the status of that feature? Its been listed on the feature request > page in the wiki for a while. > > Anyone interested in seeing this? > Has any progress been made with this? – _Phillip B Oldham_ The Activity People removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) * * * _Policies_ This e-mail and its attachments are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error, please reply to this e-mail and highlight the error. No action should be taken regarding content, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. This e-mail has been created in the knowledge that Internet e-mail is not a 100% secure communications medium, and we have taken steps to ensure that this e-mail and attachments are free from any virus. We must advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are completely virus free, and that you understand and observe the lack of security when e-mailing us. ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 12:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/12 "2008-10-09T12:25:28Z")
Hello! On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 11:23:18AM +0200, Spil G. wrote: > Anyone else made any progress? > I’ve recently posted here a patch that will allow nginx to know > when request is completed even if backend server wasn’t closed > connection. The patch is currently waiting for Igor’s review. There are two things left for http persistent connections support: chunked encoding (should be relatively easy with the mentioned patch) and saving connections for later use instead of closing them (relatively easy as is). Maxim D. ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 3:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/13 "2008-10-09T15:42:25Z")
Maxim D. wrote: > There are two things left for http persistent connections support: > chunked encoding (should be relatively easy with the mentioned > patch) and saving connections for later use instead of closing > them (relatively easy as is). No interest in collecting the bounty? ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/14 "2008-10-09T11:23:18Z")
Phillip B Oldham wrote: > Has any progress been made with this? AFAIK _someone_ still has to pickup the persistent connection thing. Several companies are willing to pay bounties for this, and I asked Evan Miller to do this, but he is currently out of OSS time. I still have this on my radar though and am still actively seeking for a developer willing to pick this up. No luck yet though. Anyone else made any progress? ---
**Author:** ![adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@adammontgomery](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/adammontgomery)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2008, 11:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/module-proposal-bosh/145250/15 "2008-10-09T23:59:48Z")
Hello! On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 03:42:25PM +0200, Spil G. wrote: > Maxim D. wrote: > > > There are two things left for http persistent connections support: > > chunked encoding (should be relatively easy with the mentioned > > patch) and saving connections for later use instead of closing > > them (relatively easy as is). > > No interest in collecting the bounty? Feel free to donate if/when I’ll do it. 🙂 Maxim D.