For create customized WebtransportSession #195 #196
Conversation
|
Simply put, I want to reuse types other than |
| B: Buf, | ||
| { | ||
| #[allow(missing_docs)] | ||
| pub fn new(conn: &'a mut Connection<C, B>) -> Self { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR.
This should be part of the feature i-implement-a-third-party-backend-and-opt-into-breaking-changes because it is not part of the http3 spec.
In general I am not sure if just adding new functions is the right way to go.
The examples you mentions do not break the WebTransport RFC and sound reasonable to me. In my opinion this should be supported by our WebTransportSession. So the right step would be to improve our API.
What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Request<()> only be used in fn validate_wt_connect(request: &Request<()>) -> bool, is it possible move this validate outside and remove argument request: Request<()> from function accept?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it help to make WebTransport::accept(...) generic like WebTransport::accept<T>(request: Request<T>,...)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unfortunately, I use CustomRequest here, not just Request<Custom>.
Another issue is that even if Request<()> is needed, it seems that ownership is not required here, and &Request<()> will suffice.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any new ideas or plans on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi, i didn't have much time the last months. So nothing new from my side.
I am still not a big fan of just adding the new methods.
But since this is just experimental, maybe we could just merge it (with feature flag i-implement-a-third-party-backend-and-opt-into-breaking-changes) until we find a way to make the API more flexible? What do you think @hyperium/h3 ?
chrislearn
changed the title
No description provided.