Re: [ANN/RFC] LMGTWTY - Web Sockets for Rack+Rainbows!

[Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>]

James Tucker <jftucker@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2009, at 18:42, Eric Wong wrote:
> > James Tucker <jftucker@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 14 Dec 2009, at 00:23, Lakshan Perera wrote:
> >>> This is awesome! Thanks for coming up something like this, in a
> >>> short period of time.  I hope this would be part of Rack, which
> >>> would enable all Ruby Frameworks to work effortlessly with
> >>> WebSockets.
> >> 
> >> I really want to work out an abstraction away from IO instances, #read
> >> and #write for this stuff. It's highly coupled, getting in the way of
> >> tests, and heavy lifting environments. I have big plans for Rack 2.0
> >> to remove all IO that has not been properly abstracted and decoupled
> >> from implementation details, but that's a long way off, mostly due to
> >> lack of time and incentive. In the meantime, I can implore you all to
> >> take steps in the right direction :-)
> > 
> > Huh?  I don't see what the problem with IO instances/semantics is,
> > especially with the availability of StringIO for testing.  "rack.input"
> > is clearly specified and works fine as-is IMHO, though the rewindability
> > requirement does add some unnecessary overhead.
> 
> I disagree with "works fine". It does not work fine with Thin, in
> fact, on the contrary, it forces some real ugliness into the system. I
> also think that StringIO is a really unfortunate thing to have to
> resort to, as it has so many short comings.

Mind elaborating?  I do not see what's ugly about it[1].

I haven't used Thin with uploads much, but I do have apps that handle
lots of large uploads (via curl -T to make PUT requests) with Unicorn
and Mongrel before that.

StringIO isn't perfect (can't stat/select/chmod on it), but for
Rack tests it's plenty alright...


[1] - I admit to having a Unix bias here where
      nearly everything is a file, or ought to be :)

-- 
Eric Wong