-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 322
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix HTTP parsing #433
Fix HTTP parsing #433
Conversation
I have updated nodejs/http-parser dependency there. But the problem is that JRuby most likely still affected :((
@httprb/core @janko-m @Bonias What do you think about us changing underlying http parser. The problem with existing one is that it's locked to the old version of nodejs/http-parser. That can be fixed by updating underlying C version, but Java version of it is not maintained at all. So I think that the best option for us is to use FFI. I'm not big fan of http-parser ffi wrapper but mostly due to it's API (it seems a bit ugly to me) and after all we end up by wrapper over wrapper. So probably if there are no strong objections against we can have our own http parser ffi version :D |
So, the principal questions I propose to focus on are:
|
I have no objections to FFI. It should provide a more consistent experience
between MRI and JRuby.
That said, I would recommend packaging the parser in the gem as opposed to
requiring an external dependency. rbnacl-libsodium does this, and builds on
both MRI and JRuby:
https://github.com/cryptosphere/rbnacl-libsodium
--
Tony Arcieri
|
I have no objections to FFI. |
Curious what @tmm1 thinks about converting the upstream http_parser.rb gem to use FFI and dropping the extant JRuby extension |
It'll still work with JRuby via FFI though in that case, right?
…On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Tony Arcieri ***@***.***> wrote:
Curious what @tmm1 <https://github.com/tmm1> thinks about converting the
upstream http_parser.rb gem to use FFI and dropping the extant JRuby
extension
—
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#433 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATvvQ15_TtcrGUs77rhq1RRWUZfXBOKks5soGRQgaJpZM4Pp-TH>
.
|
@zanker yes, although it will build the native code library at the time you install the gem |
That sounds fine to me. Don’t think compiling is the end of the world unless we’re trying to target something that’s 100% java which seems unnecessary.
…Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 1, 2017, at 22:26, Tony Arcieri ***@***.***> wrote:
@zanker yes, although it will build the native code library at the time you install the gem
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
@akihikodaki Well, I guess I have expressed myself a bit wrong. I'm totally fine with using existing gems even if it leads to wrapper over wrapper. I have only 2 problems with that particular gem:
|
Okay. Excuse me. I was wrong. |
Oh, I see. |
After finding out that http_parser.rb doesn't work on JRuby 9.2.0.0 anymore (#475), I realized why this PR is important 😃 It's great that there already exists the http-parser gem that builds upon Node.js' http-parser (just like the current http_parser.rb), but uses FFI instead of native extensions. I'm totally for using the http-parser gem, if any functionality is missing we can send PRs there. Thanks @ixti for working on this! |
Closed in favour of #489 |
☣️ DO NOT MERGE ☣️
This is a discussion starter for resolving #422