Closed yjh0502 closed 5 years ago
@yjh0502 Please sign the Contributor License Agreement!
Click here to manually synchronize the status of this Pull Request.
See the FAQ for frequently asked questions.
@yjh0502 Thank you for signing the Contributor License Agreement!
@yjh0502 after inspecting what other WS vs. regular Cowboy handler options we might want to support I think it's a good idea to keep them separated. I'll make the change and add some tests.
@yjh0502 we will enable compression by default in a separate PR, #91. According to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7692#section-5 this should be safe as clients that do not support it will not advertise the extension and thus Cowboy won't use it (at least in theory).
Allow to configure websocket compression extension, which is already supported by cowboy. STOMP frame is highly compressible in many cases because of repetitive headers, so websocket compression is quite beneficial.
In my application, average packet size is reduced by about factor of five. Here's a tcpdump capture of rabbitmq stomp-over-websocket traffic with/without compression
without compression
with compression