How would you refactor this code to use std's Mutex instead of Tokio's mutex

• tokio-tungstenite

  15 1,608 7.3 Rust

  Future-based Tungstenite for Tokio. Lightweight stream-based WebSocket implementation

  

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.

• WorkOS

  workos.com sponsored

  The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.

  

Suggest a related project