Hi Sam,
I just wanted to point out that the specification was meant to be optional and
this is why it includes the `env['upgrade.websocket?']` flag to indicate
support.
I don't think every server has to support Websockets - different server
architectures favor different tasks and performance
Sam Saffron wrote:
> For the record Eric,
>
> We use unicorn at Discourse to serve concurrent long polls across 100s
> of hosted forums using hijack with zero issues using
> https://github.com/SamSaffron/message_bus
Thanks. That's exactly the usage I had in mind when I learned
about rack.hijack
For the record Eric,
We use unicorn at Discourse to serve concurrent long polls across 100s
of hosted forums using hijack with zero issues using
https://github.com/SamSaffron/message_bus
I am not particularly enthused WebSockets and have blogged about my
reservations, in an HTTP/2 world I am less
>> Michael said
> Unicorn is a forking webserver, not an event-driven or threaded
> webserver. Whether Unicorn ever supports the proposed standard or
> not, I wouldn't recommend it be used for typical applications that use
> WebSockets, as they usually involve persistent connections. Unicorn
> wo
Boaz Segev wrote:
> Running two (or more) event loops, each with it's own
> resources, is wasteful and promotes needless context switches.
>
> There is no reason to hijack a socket when the server can
> easily provide callbacks for IO related events using it's
> existing established event loop.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Boaz Segev wrote:
> > Your Rack app could take the socket and inject it into an
> > event loop running in a separate thread. That event loop
> > could be 100% C code running without GVL for all unicorn
> > cares.
>
>
> Running two (or more) event loops, each with i
Eric, thank you for your review and thoughts on the matter.
You raised a few questions, please allow me to both answer and clarify the
intention behind the proposed extension.
>> I represent an effort to extend Rack so that it allows server-side
>> websocket upgrade implementation support and pu
Bo wrote:
> Please join the Rack Specification discussion for `env['upgrade.websocket']`
Fwiw, I have not existed outside of plain-text email for years;
so I'll respond inline here and you can link others to this
thread on:
https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/58d32d89-4523-4
Please join the Rack Specification discussion for `env['upgrade.websocket']`
I represent an effort to extend Rack so that it allows server-side websocket
upgrade implementation support and pure Rack websocket applications.
This new Rack feature proposal is gaining support, with over
