tokio-tungstenite VS rfcs

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

RFC: Add large language models to Rust

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603

Man, SO and family has really gone downhill. That top answer is absolutely terrible. In fact, if you care, you can literally look at the RFC discussion here to see the actual debate: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/582

Basically, `for x in y` is kind of redundant, already sorta-kinda supported by itertools, and there's also a ton of macros that sorta-kinda do it already. It would just be language bloat at this point.

Literally has nothing to do with memory management.

Congrats!

> Similarly, uv does not yet generate a platform-agnostic lockfile. This matches pip-tools, but differs from Poetry and PDM, making uv a better fit for projects built around the pip and pip-tools workflows.

Do you expect to make the higher level workflow independent of requirements.txt / support a platform-agnostic lockfile? Being attached to Rye makes me think "no".

Without being platform agnostic, to me this is dead-on-arrival and unable to meet the "Cargo for Python" aim.

> uv supports alternate resolution strategies. By default, uv follows the standard Python dependency resolution strategy of preferring the latest compatible version of each package. But by passing --resolution=lowest, library authors can test their packages against the lowest-compatible version of their dependencies. (This is similar to Go's Minimal version selection.)

> uv allows for resolutions against arbitrary target Python versions. While pip and pip-tools always resolve against the currently-installed Python version (generating, e.g., a Python 3.12-compatible resolution when running under Python 3.12), uv accepts a --python-version parameter, enabling you to generate, e.g., Python 3.7-compatible resolutions even when running under newer versions.

This is great to see though!

I can understand it being a flag on these lower level, directly invoked dependency resolution operations.

While you aren't onto the higher level operations yet, I think it'd be useful to see if there is any cross-ecosystem learning we can do for my MSRV RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3537

How are you handling pre-releases in you resolution? Unsure how much of that is specified in PEPs. Its something that Cargo is weak in today but we're slowly improving.

In the early days of Rust there was a debate about whether to support "green threads" and in doing that require runtime support. It was actually implemented and included for a time but it creates problems when trying to do library or embedded code. At the time Go for example chose to go that route, and it was both nice (goroutines are nice to write and well supported) and expensive (effectively requires GC etc). I don't remember the details but there is a Rust RFC from when they removed green threads:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/0806be4f282144cfcd55b...

I did some more digging. By RFC 899, I believe Alex Crichton meant PR 899 in this repo:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/899

Still, no real discussion of why unbuffered stderr.

Rust has had a stable SIMD vector API[1] for a long time. But, it's architecture specific. The portable API[2] isn't stable yet, but you probably can't use the portable API for some of the more exotic uses of SIMD anyway. Indeed, that's true in .NET's case too[3].

Rust does all this SIMD too. It just isn't in the standard library. But the regex crate does it. Indeed, this is where .NET got its SIMD approach for multiple substring search from in the first place[4]. ;-)

You're right that Rust's standard library is conservatively vectorized though[5]. The main thing blocking this isn't the lack of SIMD availability. It's more about how the standard library is internally structured, and the fact that things like substring search are not actually defined in `std` directly, but rather, in `core`. There are plans to fix this[6].

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/arch/index.html

[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/simd/index.html

[3]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/72fae0073b35a404f03c3...

[4]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/88394#issuecomment-16...

[5]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/memchr#why-is-the-standard-lib...

[6]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3469