Allow custom websocket implementations #50
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
@joreg - thanks for submitting this PR. The OSCQuery spec is a little vague about how to specify that a server support Websockets or not. My best understanding is that a server that does not support them should not provide them as fields when returning a HOST_INFO request, but this implementation provides them by default now. What do you think about only including them if they are passed to the fluent constructor? |
Contributor
Author
|
sounds good to me! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
By adding WS_PORT and WS_IP to the HostInfo as defined in the OSCQuery required attributes, we can implement the bi-directional websocket support outside of this library.