GitHub Home
I remember a few years ago when I led a team developing a real-time stock dashboard. Initially, everyone was very enthusiastic. We were all excited about building a "live" application with our own hands. But soon, we found ourselves stuck in a quagmire. The technology stack we chose performed decently when handling regular REST APIs, but once it involved WebSocket, everything became unrecognizable.
Our codebase split into two worlds: one was the "main application" handling HTTP requests, and the other was a "separate module" handling WebSocket connections. Sharing state (like user login information) between these two worlds became a nightmare. We had to resort to some very clever (or rather, ugly) methods, such as using Redis or message queues to synchronize data. The code became increasingly complex, and bugs multiplied.
This experience made me deeply realize that for modern web applications requiring real-time interaction, how a framework handles WebSocket directly determines the development experience and ultimate success of the project. Many frameworks claim to "support" WebSocket, but most of them just "weld" a WebSocket module onto the main framework. These "grafted" solutions are often the root of all our headaches.
In the Java world, you might use JAX-RS or Spring MVC to build your REST API, but to handle WebSocket, you need to use a completely different set of APIs. UserResource and ChatEndpoint live in two parallel universes. They have their own lifecycles, their own annotations, and their own parameter injection methods. Want to get current user's authentication information in ChatEndpoint? This might only require one annotation in UserResource, but here, you might need to go through great lengths to access the underlying HTTP Session.
In Node.js, the situation is similar. You use Express to set up your web server, then you need a library like ws to handle WebSocket. Same problem: app.get and wss.on('connection') are two completely different logics. How do they share middleware? For example, if you want to use an Express authentication middleware to protect your WebSocket connections, can you do this directly? The answer is, you can't.
Traditional implementation methods require introducing multiple independent modules, manually piecing together the http server with the express application, and then further splicing with WebSocketServer. Middleware is a function with a next callback, and this pattern has caused countless bugs because developers forget to call it. It works, but it feels... like it's pieced together from various parts. This is what I call complexity.
I once thought this was the price of modern web development. I was wrong. A few months ago, a young colleague saw me struggling and quietly suggested I look at a Rust-based framework he was using in his personal project. I was skeptical at the time. The so-called "next great technology," I've seen plenty. But I respect this colleague, so I decided to give it a try.
To my surprise, in this framework, WebSocket handler functions, like other HTTP route handler functions, are just ordinary async functions that receive a Context object. They are natural "brothers," not distant cousins.
The beauty of this design lies in its consistency. Once you learn how to write middleware for an HTTP route, handle requests, and operate Context, you automatically know how to do the same for WebSocket routes. The learning cost is almost zero!
Remember that authentication middleware I wrote earlier? It passes user information through Context's attributes. Now, I can apply it directly to my WebSocket routes without any modifications! When a WebSocket connection request comes in, it's first an HTTP Upgrade request. My authentication middleware runs normally, checks its Token, and if verification passes, it places User information into Context. Then, inside secure_websocket_route, I can safely extract user information from Context and bind this WebSocket connection to that user. The entire process flows smoothly without any "glue code."
This framework also pursues this consistency in API design. Whether sending a regular HTTP response body, an SSE event, or a WebSocket message, I use the same method. The framework handles all WebSocket protocol complexities (like message framing, masking, etc.) for me at the bottom layer. I only need to care about the business data I want to send. This abstraction allows developers to focus on business logic rather than protocol details.
Broadcasting? Of course, no problem! Using auxiliary libraries, I can easily distribute messages to all connected clients. The documentation even provides important technical details. This kind of advice helps developers avoid common pitfalls. This is exactly what a mature framework should look like: it not only gives you powerful tools but also tells you the best practices for using these tools.
I also remember scenarios when handling large file uploads. In a traditional Node.js environment, when a client uploads a large file, the entire server might be blocked. But in this framework, I can easily use streaming processing, allowing large file uploads not to affect other connection processing. This capability is extremely valuable in high-concurrency scenarios.
This framework's support for SSE (Server-Sent Events) also impressed me. SSE is a lighter-weight real-time communication solution than WebSocket, particularly suitable for scenarios where the server pushes data unidirectionally to the client. In this framework, implementing SSE is as simple as implementing a regular HTTP route. I only need to set the correct Content-Type and then continuously push data to the client.
What surprised me most was that this framework's native WebSocket support is so efficient. In stress tests, I found that a single instance could easily handle tens of thousands of concurrent WebSocket connections, while memory usage remained very low. This is mainly attributed to Rust's zero-cost abstractions and the efficient scheduling of the Tokio runtime.
I also remember once when we needed to implement a complex real-time collaboration feature involving state synchronization between multiple users. In the previous architecture, this required complex message routing and state management logic. But in the new framework, I found the implementation was exceptionally simple. I only needed to maintain state in each user's Context and then notify all relevant users of state changes through the broadcast mechanism.
This framework's real-time communication capabilities made me rethink the architectural patterns of web applications. I started trying to build more "event-driven" applications instead of the traditional request-response model. This transformation made my applications more responsive, and user experience also improved significantly.
After several months of use, I found that this framework's real-time communication features had become the core competitiveness of my project. We could provide smoother and more real-time user experiences, which is an important advantage in a fiercely competitive market.
As an experienced developer, I deeply understand the importance of technology selection. Choosing a framework with excellent real-time communication design not only improves development efficiency but more importantly determines the final quality of the product. This Rust-based framework is undoubtedly a benchmark in this regard.
I look forward to seeing more such technological innovations and hope that real-time communication becomes a standard configuration for web applications rather than an expensive add-on feature. And as a participant and promoter of this transformation, I feel extremely honored and excited.
Top comments (0)