4 ms·
I've always been hesitant with a introducing a websocket server into my rails application. If the websocket server goes down, you'll still be able to render the
by sharps_xp 5y ago
I've always been hesitant with a introducing a websocket server into my rails application. If the websocket server goes down, you'll still be able to render the SSR-ed shell via the web server. Aren't we just introducing the data consistency problems into every HTML page that uses Turbo. Rails has celebrated its monolithic approach, but i just don't want to deal with websocket problems when what I want is truly a one person framework.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jaredcwhite 5y agoTurbo isn't websockets. There's a specific Rails integration whereby you can broadcast a Turbo Stream over websockets, but that's 100% optional. You can use Turbo Streams (and Frames and Drive) over pure request/response HTTP lifecycles. I use Turbo on static sites!
- sharps_xp 5y agowow in that case, this is huge for me… i’m currently architecting a rails app to have global users. turbo with http seems perfect to save bandwidth and fine tuned caching configurations… i might have to look at how/when the response is stripped from the frames. TIL