Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

WASM Support #630

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 26, 2019
Merged

WASM Support #630

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 26, 2019

Conversation

seanmonstar
Copy link
Owner

@seanmonstar seanmonstar commented Sep 10, 2019 •
edited
Loading

This starts adding wasm32 support to reqwest. Many things don't yet work in it. But the part that is there are least compiles!

Status:

  • request method
  • request URL
  • request headers
  • request body
  • fetch response
  • response status code
  • response headers
  • response body as text
  • response body as bytes
  • CI: somehow run some tests

cc #288

@seanmonstar seanmonstar mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2019
Closed
@seanmonstar seanmonstar force-pushed the wasm branch 4 times, most recently from 5c43e3f to 5599bad Compare September 12, 2019 00:53
@seanmonstar seanmonstar force-pushed the wasm branch 2 times, most recently from 32ca69b to 71af6e3 Compare September 19, 2019 21:46
@MartinKavik MartinKavik mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2019
Closed
@seanmonstar seanmonstar force-pushed the wasm branch 4 times, most recently from f97f214 to a48d664 Compare September 24, 2019 22:28
@seanmonstar seanmonstar marked this pull request as ready for review September 24, 2019 23:07
@seanmonstar seanmonstar merged commit 932defd into master Sep 26, 2019
@seanmonstar seanmonstar deleted the wasm branch September 26, 2019 17:01
@seanmonstar
Copy link
Owner Author

While there's some things still missing, I think it's best to merge what there is and open new issues. This may help others to test and contribute :D

@jgall
Copy link
Contributor

jgall commented Oct 15, 2019

I'm curious with the request and response body - would there be any value in exposing the bodies as JSValues? Or should the bodies always be either text or bytes. (I'd be glad to add in either feature in the next few weeks if I have the time)

@seanmonstar
Copy link
Owner Author

I don't have much experience using WASM, so it'd help if those that did could chime in. But, my initial feeling is to not expose a JsValue, and instead let it just feel like usual Rust.

@workingjubilee workingjubilee mentioned this pull request May 12, 2020
Open
@stoically stoically mentioned this pull request Aug 10, 2020
Closed
@justinmoon justinmoon mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2022
Closed
@brandonros brandonros mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2022
Open
@araujo-luis
Copy link

An example of how to use it would be great!

@duckfromdiscord
Copy link

does it circumvent cors?

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 10, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@seanmonstar @jgall @araujo-luis @duckfromdiscord