tokio-tungstenite VS too-many-lists

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

You seem to have a preset opinion, and I'm not sure you are interested in re-evaluating it. So this is not written to change your mind.

I've developed production code in C, C++, Rust, and several other languages. And while like pretty much everything, there are situations where it's not a good fit, I find that the solutions tend to be the most robust and require the least post release debugging in Rust. That's my personal experience. It's not hard data. And yes occasionally it's annoying to please the compiler, and if there were no trait constraints or borrow rules, those instances would be easier. But way more often in my experience the compiler complained because my initial solution had problems I didn't realize before. So for me, these situations have been about going from building it the way I wanted to -> compiler tells me I didn't consider an edge case -> changing the implementation and or design to account for that edge case. Also using one example, where is Rust is notoriously hard and or un-ergonomic to use, and dismissing the entire language seems premature to me. For those that insist on learning Rust by implementing a linked list there is https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/.

Advent of Code was okay until I encounterd a problem that required a graph, tree or linked list to solve, where I hit a wall. Most coding exercises are similar--those requiring arrays and hashmaps and sets are okay, but complex data structures are a PITA. (There is an online course dedicated to linked lists in Rust but I couldn't grok it either). IMO you should simply skip problems that you can't solve with your current knowledge level and move on.

I feel obligated to point to the original cannon literature: https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/

I started learning Rust and like how the compiler is fussy about things. My plan was to implement the data structures I knew, but I got stuck at the singly linked list's remove() method. I've read the book as well, but I have no clue how to simplify this further:

My impression from the article is that Zig provides several different hashtables and not all of them are broken in this way.

This reminds me of Aria's comment in her Rust tutorial https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/ about failing to kill LinkedList. One philosophy (and the one Rust chose) for a stdlib is that this is only where things should live when they're so commonly needed that essentially everybody needs them either directly or to talk about. So, HashTable is needed by so much otherwise unrelated software that qualifies, BloomFilter, while it's real useful for some people, not so much. Aria cleaned out Rust's set of standard library containers before Rust 1.0, trying to keep only those most people would need. LinkedList isn't a good general purpose data structure, but, it was too popular and Aria was not able to remove it.

Having multiple hash tables feels like a win (they're optimized for different purposes) but may cost too much in terms of the necessary testing to ensure they all hit the quality you want.

> Cyclic references can be dealt with runtime safety checks too - like Rc and Weak.

Indeed. Starting out with code sprinkled with Rc, Weak, RefCell, etc is perfectly fine and performance will probably not be worse than in any other safe languages. And if you do this, Rust is pretty close to those languages in ease of use for what are otherwise complex topics in Rust.

A good reference for different approaches is Learn Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists https://rust-unofficial.github.io/too-many-lists/

Second, once you've finished something introductory like The Book, read Learning Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists. It really helped me to understand what ownership and borrowing actually mean in practical terms. If you don't mind paying for learning materials, a lot of people recommend Programming Rust, Second Edition by Blandy, Orendorff, and Tindall as either a complement, follow-up, or alternative to The Book.

Learning Rust With Entirely Too Many Linked Lists which highlights a lot of the differences with how you need to structure your code in Rust compared to other languages.