Repository navigation
Add sub-protocol support #130
Description
As a WebSocket emulation layer, it makes sense to support sub-protocols in SockJS. The sockjs-client could have a "protocols" option added with the value passed to the server either through the W3C WebSocket constructor or by setting the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header.
Servers can then choose to add support by checking the Sec-WebSocket-Protocol header.
Activity
matzew commentedon Aug 5, 2013
👍 yes, that would be a nice addition
sshcherbakov commentedon Aug 19, 2013
+1!
radicans commentedon Aug 27, 2014
Once people stop commenting and start contributing.
sshcherbakov commentedon Aug 27, 2014
There are 7 open PRs, some of them hanging since 2013.
Seeing this picture one might ask whether the project is dead.
radicans commentedon Aug 27, 2014
@sshcherbakov Yes, lets completely ignore the fact that @brycekahle has been had at work rewriting the client since he took over the project and posted various of updates on issues stating that a new release will come once the refactor is done.
The health of a project cannot be determined by the amount of open pull requests and issues. With that same mindset you would also consider joyent/node to be dead as it has 216 open pull requests and 710 issues. Where the oldest pull request is from Mar 10, 2012.
sshcherbakov commentedon Aug 27, 2014
Sorry, didn't check the recent closed PR activity.
It looks definitely better than half a year ago.
brycekahle commentedon Oct 20, 2014
Since this needs to support more transports than just Websockets, we can't use the WS specific headers. I think the approach taken in #139 is better, by adding it to the info response.
I'm going to schedule this for 1.1 given how much work it will probably be.
rstoyanchev commentedon Oct 21, 2014
This would be a good fit for 1.0 IMO especially now that #65 is addressed. SockJS is very much focused on being a transport so it makes sense to have some sub-protocol negotiation support.
danbev commentedon Oct 21, 2014
@brycekahle Let me know if there is anything I can help out with on this issue.
brycekahle commentedon Oct 21, 2014
This would require server work and changes to the protocol. Right now 1.0 is compatible with the existing protocol, so I don't want to delay 1.0 even further with this work.
danbev commentedon Oct 23, 2014
@brycekahle Sounds good and I'd be happy to take a stab at adding this for
1.x.allbutone commentedon Apr 3, 2018
does sockjs support sub-protocols now ?
brycekahle commentedon Apr 6, 2018
@allbutone This issue is still open, so no.