[nanomsg] Re: Compressing TCP streams
- From: "Garrett D'Amore" <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 07:12:00 -0700
I still would like to do web socket. I started the work on openssl, but to
be honest nanomsg's internals are not terribly conducive to adapting to
openssl. There is a lot of work that relies on async io and fie
descriptors, which makes it kind of a poor fit for adaptation to OpenSSL.
Writing the OpenSSL transport for mangos was trivial, by comparison. I
suspect that websocket will be almost as trivial.
One of my ideas that I simply haven't done yet is to write a "device"
command line application, that can be used so that you can use mangos as a
trivial front end (device) to nanomsg, allowing for quickly deploying
OpenSSL (and in the future websocket) on top of existing nanomsg
applications without any need to recompile or change code.
Would folks find such an application useful?
My own immediate needs for mangos have subsided for a bit, as I'm working
on some other things right now, but if something like this would be useful
I'd be happy to spend a little time to do both the device app, and
websocket. Just need to hear "votes" for it, is all, as I don't want to
burn cycles on something nobody is going to use.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/06/14 09:27, Martin Sustrik wrote:
>
> > 2. Hop-by-hop compression. (This is what you mean AFAIU.) In this
> > case there may be a common context, but the compression must be
> > done within nanomsg and is, I reckon, protocol-specific (i.e.
> > compression for reliable transports is going to be different from
> > compression for unreliable transports etc.) If you are interested
> > in this I would suggest creating a new transport, something like
> > "TCP with compression".
>
> Btw, I still believe something like websocket transport may be a good
> idea. I also recall seeing some work on compressed websockets done in
> IETF. I don't know whether it have amounted to anything in the end though.
>
> Martin
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTjCgGAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Yj/4IAICD/AYoGjkvZbIG4smwNKzY
> S/th3EHc42H0bCTKe7cpDy+v/WEB8ioiLZQWqqMck69y4P1GufPY84l9pAsKEXyJ
> pMDQNbbKesQqutLdPUhXRcUZ7V/2rnKEAqDLagczGEQplCA//X3xoeQ8i6w/7/6A
> Q6lmQ1t7fYI+5c+TqN9I3CKh9gdck0foawMtSaD1jS7UAIDYs9qpNIDsSoVcDobX
> Ca6X55m49lCb3QgOcFhpEugMNlbn001xS6sWdvu/mSOZrlv2wklfq2+KHtbY5pZ3
> MogLrJT9fntMm/x/ZBVnWUiBFYeVPGATyxSGhowvPmF4BcSkb8CP39Ps38HXRSE=
> =BEKa
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Other related posts:
