tokio-tungstenite VS compiler-team

I can't help you debug your code if you do not provide it. Have you looked at the example client?

It passed all test of the autobahn testsuite And web-socket-benchmark show about 3x faster then tokio-tungstenite

There are example files in the tokio-tungstenite crate called `autobahn-client.rs` and `autobahn-server.rs`. Why are they called autobahn? I googled and can't understand what autobahn is all about. Is it a websocket pattern? Or some protocol?

I'm using another crate that requires tls, specifically tokio-tungstenite, I'll try your suggestions later today once I get home

Tokio-tungstenite - It looks like in this example, it's spamming the task thread with wakeup calls from all of the active connections. This design choice makes me doubt that this was well written in general.

tokio-tungstenite is the more popular library. In frameworks, offhand Axum supports websockets (docs, example)

If you only have one task sending data to the sink, you probably don't need forward, as you can just write to the sink directly (you might not even need to split the stream in the first place, but i'm not sure about that). But often you want to write to the sink from different tasks (e.g. this example takes messages sent from one websocket connection, and broadcasts it onto every other connected websocket, so the sink for each websocket needs to be accessed by every other websocket handler task), and you can't do that with only the sink as you can't clone it. Either need to wrap it into a Mutex and clone that around the different tasks (and lock it every time you need to write to it, like OP did originally) or you can use forward to map the rx (receiver) of a channel to the sink, and clone the tx (sender) part of the channel for each task that wants to write to the sink. That way, you only have one task that is accessing the sink directly, so no issues with synchronization.

Has anyone worked with websockets before? Particularly with the tokio-tungstenite crate? I'm getting a Protocol(ResetWithoutClosingHandshake) error in my request. I send in some text, and i'm supposed to receive an audio file back.

tokio-tungstenite

i based my code mostly on the client example from the tokio-tungstenite project: https://github.com/snapview/tokio-tungstenite/blob/master/examples/client.rs

> Also, why aren't we size-sorting fields already?

We are for struct/enum fields. https://camlorn.net/posts/April%202017/rust-struct-field-reo...

There's even an unstable flag to help catch incorrect assumptions about struct layout. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/457

Are you talking about https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/688 ? I think that issue provides a lot of interesting context for this specific improvement.

And mips64, which rustc recently dumped support for after their attempt to extort funding/resources from Loongson failed:

https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/648

This is the biggest problem with the LLVM mentality: they use architecture support as a means to extract support (i.e. salaried dev positions) from hardware companies.

GNU may have annoyingly-higher standards for merging changes, but once it's in there and supported they will keep it for the long haul.

See https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/688

The work has been going on for some time now and it seems we are quite close to it being enabled as a default for nightly builds, I am super thrilled upwards of 20% faster clean builds and possibly more are on the horizon. Hope everything works out without triggering some unseen ICE. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/681 Edit: If you want to discuss this feature reach out on Zulip

I'd recommend reading the MCP[1] they linked regarding the decision as well as their target tier policy [2].

They are dropping tier 1 support for Win 7 and Win 8. That means they are no longer going to guarantee that the project builds on those platforms and passes all tests via CI.

As long as it is feasible they will probably keep CI runs for those platforms and if interested parties step up and provide sufficient maintenance support, it will remain tier 2. i.e a guarantee that it builds on those platforms via CI but not necessarily that all features are supported and guaranteed via passing tests.

If interested parties can provide sufficient maintenance that all tests continue passing, it will be tier 1 in all but name. However the rest of the development community won't waste their time with issues like Win 7 and 8's partial support for UTF-8.

And once CI stops being feasible for the compiler team to host, it'll drop down to tier 3. If there's sufficient interest from the community towards maintaining these targets, in practice you should see comparable support to with tiers 1 or 2 however now any CI will be managed externally by the community and the compiler team will stop worrying about changes that could break compilation on those targets.

TLDR: They aren't saying "it'll no longer work" but rather "if you want it to stay maintained for these targets, you have to pitch in dev hours to maintain it and eventually support the infrastructure to do this because we don't see a reason to continue doing this". So if you care for these targets, you'll have to contribute to keep it maintained.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/651

(The already broken) XP support was removed almost 3 years ago: https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/378