tower-lsp VS url-mapper-rs

I am using nom / nom_locate to build the parser side because I've done a handful of other projects with it, and I plan to use tower-lsp to hook up the language server side.

I realize this might not be for everyone, but I'm writing it in Rust using Lib-ruby-parser and tower-lsp: two existing libraries that handle a bunch of the heavy lifting for me. I'm more productive in Rust than with Ruby at this point, despite doing Ruby full time for 15 years, plus I really really don't want to have to deal with a slow LSP--that was the whome impetus for this project. I started in the spring, made a bunch of headway, then backtracked to redo the internals to make it easier to handle monkeypatching, overriding/redefining of methods, etc. across your project.

https://github.com/ebkalderon/tower-lsp is a generalized LSP implementation in a lower-level language (Rust) so you may get a better idea by reading through that repo. It seems that the server opens a TCP socket that the client later connects to, but I'm not really sure.

I was taking a look at the tower_lsp example here (https://github.com/ebkalderon/tower-lsp/blob/master/examples/stdio.rs) and had a question about how the document sync works between the client and the server.

Mine all use [tower-lsp](https://github.com/ebkalderon/tower-lsp/) for the LSP protocol stuff, and then either [Tree-sitter](https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter) or [Nom](https://github.com/Geal/nom). If I do another I'll probably try [Chumsky](https://github.com/zesterer/chumsky) which combines some of the advantages of both.

This is part of a video series I made, the code you see here isn't the final code, the final code is here - https://github.com/dhruvasagar/url-mapper-rs ( I still don't think this is production ready, but it does perform well opposed to just sharing the pool between multiple request handlers directly ).