One thing people might need to keep in mind is that Lapis isn't particularly interested in adding features that itch.io doesn't need. Been almost a decade since websocket support was requested e.g.
Lapis is very dependent on the server backend it is running in, generally OpenResty.
Last I investigated, the ergonomics of the websockets API in OpenResty didn't really seem like a good candidate for building websocket based applications. As an example, there's no trivial way to keep track of all connected clients and broadcast a message to them without overly complicated solutions. It's not trivial to listen to events from different asynchronous sources at the same time. (probably other things too but I don't remember right now) OpenResty/Nginx is not a general purpose event loop. The fact that it's primarily an HTTP webserver is evident in the design of the interfaces that are made available.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from and utilizing the `ngx` APIs directly, there are just a few considerations to be made with database connection pooling, but generally you can `require` any Lapis module and use it anywhere in Lua code. For websockets in OpenResty look here: https://github.com/openresty/lua-resty-websocket
The reason the issue is still open is not because I'm not interested in adding it, but because I didn't feel Lapis could provide a useful abstraction at this time.
This is valuable context behind understanding the issue. I apologise for the unfounded accusation, though in my defence the issue probably could have used this clarification.
In any case, I sympathise with being constrained by design/interface of underlying technology. One one hand, I suspect like most people I lack the knowledge of Nginx internals or its Lua API. But on the other hand, it's cool that one has an escape hatch in terms of being able to leverage other solutions from the underlying platform.
My last two cents on this matter (not a criticism or demand), since the docs are beginner friendly, perhaps a likewise friendly guide on dropping down to `ngx` API for the rare case when such escape hatches are needed (e.g. cookbook for this websocket scenario) could be beneficial for end user, even if the primary focus of Lapis is to enable one to not have to do that.
What in that issue says that Lapis would only implement things needed for itch.io? Seems there is a off-hand comment by a non-contributor that it seems to be like that, but hardly a confirmation it actually is like that.
This is completely incorrect comment. There is no rejection of any form, it is logical that the main developer who used it to build itch.io is not going to put in the effort to do something they don't care about. But the product is open source, anyone can write that functionality, and I am sure it would be accepted. What you are complaining about is a developer who is not willing to put in free effort for a feature you care about, but are not willing to contribute to.
> But the product is open source, anyone can write that functionality, and I am sure it would be accepted.
I have often read on HN that not accepting a PR for a feature that is not tangential to the core business of the project is valid and understandable when the maintainer believes it will require too much resources (bug triage, fixes, documentation, short or long term support in the forums, etc.) from him.
I am sorry, I wish I could rephrase "from him" with a neutral pronoun but it's too late for editing. English isn't my first language and I don't have the same reflexes when writing.
> What you are complaining about is a developer who is not willing to put in free effort for a feature you care about, but are not willing to contribute to.
How exactly is this complaining? I am merely making an observation, not even in the earshot of their devs. I had evaluated Lapis years ago, but quickly moved on when it didn't seem adequate. I didn't complain about that in their issue tracker then, and I am not going out of my way to bring this up now because I am holding a grudge like you are implying. Whether or not they add websocket today wouldn't matter to me in the least, I am simply indifferent to it.
> it is logical that the main developer who used it to build itch.io is not going to put in the effort to do something they don't care about
There are plenty of frameworks that add features well beyond what the devs need for their own products. All I am saying is it might be more logical for other people here to use those instead. Of course people can come to this conclusion on their own, but highlighting what I believe to be a key information may save that time.
I don't get this sentiment. Just as the maintainer is allowed to do whatever they want with their project, random people on the internet can also warn other people about downsides of said project. Absolutely nothing GP said implied that they felt entitled to a feature.
It is useful information for potential users to know how the project works and if it might not fit them well. There's no contract or agreement between the maintainer and users. Users are free to talk about the project. As long as they don't demand anything I don't see the issue at all.
https://github.com/leafo/lapis/issues/233