feat(runtime/http): websocket support #10359
Conversation
# Conflicts: # op_crates/websocket/lib.rs
runtime/js/40_http.js
Outdated
|
|
||
| return { request, respondWith }; | ||
| return { request, respondWith, upgradeWebsocket }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we use upgrade instead of upgradeWebsocket? a simple API can get better dev experience.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, upgrading isn't something exclusive to websockets. that would end up being misleading and confusing.
9 more characters in a function name used in a single place wont affect dev experience.
Of course that would make sense if we would support upgrading other kind of conns out of the box
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of course that would make sense if we would support upgrading other kind of conns out of the box
Other hypothetical upgrades would have different return types, so they should just have individual names anyway.
|
@crowlKats I'm a bit confused about how this depends on #10365... I haven't dived into this PR but I'm not sure why we would need to expose WebSocketStream in order to hook up the hyper-tungstenite bindings? I don't care so much about WebSocketStream support - since it's still a tentative API - but I'm rather keen to land this PR. |
Co-authored-by: Nayeem Rahman <[email protected]>
# Conflicts: # extensions/websocket/lib.rs # runtime/ops/http.rs # runtime/ops/websocket.rs
Co-authored-by: Nayeem Rahman <[email protected]>
|
Blocked on hyperium/hyper#2587 |
# Conflicts: # Cargo.lock # Cargo.toml # cli/dts/lib.deno.unstable.d.ts # extensions/net/03_http.js # extensions/net/ops_http.rs # runtime/Cargo.toml
# Conflicts: # Cargo.lock
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Thanks for this great feature!
We need to add some documentation for this to https://deno.land/[email protected]/runtime/http_server_apis in a follow up commit.
Closes #10211