Update to final websocket standard

[DamianEdwards]

dam...@damianedwards.com commented:

Using version 1.7 as embedded in http://chutzpah.codeplex.com

1. Try to make a websocket connection to a server that only supports the final websocket standard (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6455/?include_text=1), e.g. ASP.NET 4.5 on Windows Server 2012
2. Server refuses to connect due to missing websocket headers, etc.

It appears phantomjs is still using a version of webkit that uses the older websocket standards. This means it can't connect to servers that only support the final standard.

Disclaimer:
This issue was migrated on 2013-03-15 from the project's former issue tracker on Google Code, Issue #1018.
🌟   2 people had starred this issue at the time of migration.

[DarrenCook]

Confirmed that version 1.8.2 still has this problem. I.e. phantomjs is sending these headers:
Sec-WebSocket-Key1: 18 435(0 1 3 9 + I 6
Sec-WebSocket-Key2: G\z2H g9g51 Y541 5 $ 7 0

whereas Chrome sends these headers:
Sec-WebSocket-Key: g0/pJBhlk6jcsYsKJnl0UQ==
Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13

Any idea of a timeframe for a fix for this? Is updating to the latest webkit a big task?

[DarrenCook]

See #10031 and https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/phantomjs/rl-jNxUMB9k/discussion (Summary: new webkit not in version 1.8, but hopefully it could be in 1.9)

[nfroidure]

Hi,

Got the same problem. Any chance to get it working by building from current master branch ?

[JamesMGreene]

@nfroidure: No, unfortunately not.

This will likely be resolved with the upgrade to Qt 5.0 and a more recent WebKit version in the PhantomJS 2.0 release.

[nfroidure]

@JamesMGreene thank you for your help. Do you know when i can expect the first working build for the 2.0 version ?

[jprichardson]

Ya, I'm also curious, what's the status of the 2.0 version? I don't see any 2.0 related branches... is the master branch the branch for 2.0?

[JamesMGreene]

No, the changes are dramatic enough that we are keeping them in a separate repo for now:
https://github.com/Vitallium/phantomjs-qt5

Not ready for testing yet.

[jprichardson]

Cool. Looks like @vitallium is the only one really working on it (by viewing the commits). Have you guys thought about creating a PhantomJS Github org? Might help with visibility with the qt5 version. cc: @ariya

[JamesMGreene]

@ariya and I have discussed it at least once in the past but we didn't see a strong need at that time. I do, however, agree that creating an organization would make sense now, especially if some of the owners of "family projects" would be willing to move their repos into it, e.g. @n1ko's Casper, @detro's GhostDriver, etc.

Another common pattern I see is that the primary project (ariya/phantomjs) stays under the owner's name and all other move into an org, e.g. RequireJS, GruntJS, etc.

[arunkjn]

@JamesMGreene Is this dead? I see no progress in 2.0. Any timelines on possible release for 2.0 yet?

[JamesMGreene]

Please refer to the mailing list. Phantom 2.0 is slowly marching toward being "beta ready".

[vitallium]

Fixed in 2.0

[l15k4]

Guys is it fixed in this repo? In master branch? I built master a week ago and the current version of websockets didn't seem to be working the same way as on 1.9 branch.

[l15k4]

Got it, it's here https://github.com/Vitallium/phantomjs/tree/2.0

[bowzoo]

@l15k4 : hi, i wonder if you have the correct link for https://github.com/Vitallium/phantomjs/tree/2.0 ? It is 404 to me.

[JamesMGreene]

@bowzoo: It's been merged into https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs/tree/master for a while now. Still working through some regressions before we can release it.

[bowzoo]

@JamesMGreene : i tried to clone https://github.com/ariya/phantomjs.git and i see my websocket error. Do you know if it supports final websocket standard yet?

[JamesMGreene]

@vitallium claimed so. I haven't tested it myself.

[vitallium]

@bowzoo PhantomJS 2 supports the latest specs of WebSocket.

[cakey]

Hey,
Any update on ETA?

Thanks :)

[b-long]

@vitallium Is that true? http://phantomjs.org/inter-process-communication.html seems to imply that there's limited WebSocket capability.

[vitallium]

@b-long yes, it is.

[b-long]

@vitallium Excellent, thanks! I had looked at the ChangeLog and also didn't see a glaring note that "Full WebSocket support is now available" . Perhaps the IPC page needs to be updated.

[scottdraves]

just got confused by the IPC page.