Enhance live connection handshake interpretation in server #69
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
Compat/Breaking
Kind/Bug
Kind/Documentation
Kind/Enhancement
Kind/Feature
Kind/Security
Kind/Testing
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
Reviewed
Invalid
Reviewed
Won't Fix
Status
Abandoned
Status
Blocked
Status
Need More Info
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Blocks
#67 Handle server live authentication inside WebSocket connection
luca0N/lanbassador
#70 Update live connection handshake structure
luca0N/lanbassador
Reference
luca0N/lanbassador!69
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "dev_server_live_handshake"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Enhance the live connection handshake in the server. This commit
removes the need to specify the protocol version in every packet sent by
clients, and instead relies on clients specifying the protocol version
right after connecting (the "handshake"). The server then goes on to
either accept the connection (if the protocol version is supported), or
to reject it (if the protocol version is unsupported).
This is marked as a WIP because, at this time, the server expects clients to write the protocol version directly as a string in the
datafield. A better approach would be to have a defined data structure (an object) which then has the version as a string.WIP: Enhance live connection handshake interpretation in serverto Enhance live connection handshake interpretation in serverAs explained in the message of commit
e6353ca48a, the refactoring that was made in `readClientPacket' consumes pending input data from the WebSocket connection. This way, it becomes impossible to reinterpret the data of the packet with another type, because JSON unmarshalling is only handled once. I would like to iron out this issue before the first stable version (or, perhaps, before even merging this pull request).@luca0N wrote in #69 (comment):
I have decided to keep the code as-is for now because