Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Roadmap v5#4529

Unanswered
darrachequesne asked this question inGeneral
Nov 21, 2022· 3 comments· 3 replies
Discussion options

Here is the list of changes for the next major version of Socket.IO. This list is obviously up for discussions, so please do not hesitate to comment here.

  • remove the reference to the handshake request (socket.request)

Rationale: keeping a reference to thehttp.IncomingMessage increases the memory footprint. Note: we should provide an alternative to be used withexpress-session and such.

Related:#3792

  • when callingio.close() do not close the HTTP server if it was not created by the library

Related:#4002 (reply in thread)

  • use private properties ("#") in order to improve the minification of the client bundle

Note: we might need to drop support for some older versions of Node.js.

Update: using private class fields does not significantly reduce the bundle size after minification + gzip (and is a breaking change since it is only supported starting with Node.js 14.6.0) so this change makes little sense for now.

  • remove the "error" event emitted by thesocket object

Related:#2047

Update: fixed in15af22f

Rationale: currently we have "at-most-once" semantics, possibly "at-least-once" with acknowledgements and manual retry, but we could provide additional guarantees. Might be linked to#4510

Update: implemented insocketio/socket.io-client@655dce9

  • prevent users from shooting themselves in the foot withsocket.leave(socket.id);

Related:#4524

[...]

You must be logged in to vote

Replies: 3 comments 3 replies

Comment options

Hi what about[RFC] Lite javascript client #4393

You must be logged in to vote
1 reply
@darrachequesne
Comment options

darrachequesneNov 30, 2022
Maintainer Author

That's a great idea! It should be independent from v5 though.

Comment options

That's really greate functionality

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Comment options

May I suggest to improve the usability of the RemoteSocket interface?
I fell in a lot of issues by not knowing how to properly handle a remote fetched socket...
My proposal would be to:

  • Add a documentation page for RemoteSocket explaining:
  • Add quick ways to distinguish between Socket and RemoteSocket (someisRemote flag or similar)

I've opened also a discussion about this some time ago:#4807

You must be logged in to vote
2 replies
@darrachequesne
Comment options

darrachequesneJan 22, 2024
Maintainer Author

Thanks for the heads-up, I will add this to the documentation.

@ghost
Comment options

Thank you!

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
3 participants
@darrachequesne@qiulang@655452

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp