Skip to content
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

Local Transport Improvements #489

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 18, 2018
Merged

Local Transport Improvements #489

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 18, 2018

Conversation

nebhale
Copy link
Member

@nebhale nebhale commented Apr 16, 2018

This change makes general improvements to the Local Transport. It updates the code to make it better documented and tested. In addition it introduces the new TransportTest, a JUnit 5 way of testing uniformly across all of the transport implementations.

This change makes general improvements to the Local Transport.  It updates the
code to make it better documented and tested.  In addition it introduces the
new TransportTest, a JUnit 5 way of testing uniformly across all of the
transport implementations.
Copy link
Member

@yschimke yschimke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One open question about default ports for ws vs wss.

Overall, looks like a nice cleanup/modernization

}

return UriHandler.super.buildServer(uri);
return Optional.of(
WebsocketServerTransport.create(uri.getHost(), WebsocketClientTransport.getPort(uri, 80)));
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe this will cause a wss://rsocket.mycompany.com/endpoint to use 80 instead of 443

Copy link
Member Author

@nebhale nebhale Apr 17, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That’s always been the case though. In this update, I’m aiming to not change any of the behavior as it exists. If we think it’s a bug, maybe opening an issue that I’ll work separately is the best way to go?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Before it was only supporting plaintext as a server, so 80 was correct. IIRC my assumption at the time was it's easy to create a client with default SslContext etc, but servers generally require additional setup e.g. cert chains.

@yschimke yschimke merged commit e45327c into rsocket:1.0.x Apr 18, 2018
@nebhale nebhale deleted the local-transport branch April 18, 2018 11:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants