Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Websocket address support for Unix Sockets #702

Closed
ruffsl opened this issue May 3, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

Websocket address support for Unix Sockets #702

ruffsl opened this issue May 3, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Broken functionality or incorrect documentation

Comments

@ruffsl
Copy link

ruffsl commented May 3, 2023

When hosting a foxglove websocket bridge behind a reverse proxy on the same machine, it would be nice to support unix sockets as a host address/port for the websocket server connection. This could be more efficient than redirecting websocket traffic over local loopback network interfaces, with some web servers now natively supporting unix sockets:

As a bonus, this could improve the overhead performance/latency in Foxglove Studio as well, if compatible with the Electron app, providing a performative alternative to the deprecated native ROS2 bridge that could've used DDS shared memory transport.

As of writing, it looks like the websocketpp library used here has a ticket and PR implementation for supporting unix sockets:

@ruffsl ruffsl added the bug Broken functionality or incorrect documentation label May 3, 2023
@foxhubber
Copy link

foxhubber bot commented May 3, 2023

Internal tracking ticket: FG-3212

@defunctzombie
Copy link

@ruffsl Is there a bug you want to report here or is this a feature request? If this is a feature request please post this over in the discussions: https://github.com/orgs/foxglove/discussions rather than this repo as a bug.

@amacneil amacneil transferred this issue from foxglove/ros-foxglove-bridge May 3, 2023
@foxglove foxglove locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 3, 2023
@amacneil amacneil converted this issue into discussion #703 May 3, 2023

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
bug Broken functionality or incorrect documentation
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants