Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Axum integration #39
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Axum integration #39
Changes from 1 commit
75b3953
6bb97f0
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can understand the rationale behind this but I don't believe that this is required as it's a fairly simple integration and there isn't really another way of integrating it into Axum.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some module-level documentation would be good for this. Coupled with an example of it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it would be more ergonomic if this was inverted a bit. It would also be safer as it ensures that any contracts made during the upgrade are upheld as we create the
WebSocket
instance. Otherwise, we could negotiate an extension and then a user could create aWebSocket
without it.Something like this:
Then you could use it as follows:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@SirCipher I am trying to implement the upgrade like this but having trouble because
ExtensionProvider
is notSend
. I tried it with the below setup, and was able to get it to compile/run, but running into this error:wondering if you have any advice here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A user needs to be able to specify
sec-websocket-protocol
headers and the server needs to take the intersection of the two sets.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This isn't quite correct. If the client has sent a
permessage-deflate
header then it must be negotiated by the extension otherwise the connection will be unreliable. If the server accepts the PMCE request, then the client may send a compressed frame that the server won't be able to read. While it is correct that the server can elect to ignore the configuration parameters, Ratchet does support Deflate PMCE configuration and it's worth integrating.What it would be worth doing, is providing an https://docs.rs/ratchet_ext/latest/ratchet_ext/trait.ExtensionProvider.html which a user may specify to the Axum Router or the handler may capture it. Then you can use this provider to perform the extension negotiation using https://docs.rs/ratchet_ext/latest/ratchet_ext/trait.ExtensionProvider.html#tymethod.negotiate_server.
Also, so it's tidier, you can use
http::http::header::SEC_WEBSOCKET_EXTENSIONS
here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seeing as this is the only place that
async_trait
is used it's not really worth adding the dependency. You can just expandfrom_request_parts
to return aBoxFuture