You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
core currently includes two TLS stacks, native and rustls. rust-native does not yet support async -- maybe @dignifiedquire could clarify how far that is away. reqwest (used by core) in turn does not support rustls -- not sure how far that is away. IMO the API of rust-native is much nicer than with rustls but that's not a big inconvenience at this point. We want to get rid of one of the TLS stacks, also to reduce size of the compiled lib which is shipped in the releases. See also #870 how the two-tls situation increases compile times etc. If one of the two stacks leads to a lesser increase in file size, i'd have a preference for that, at least in the longer term.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ah k, i misunderstood then ... the fact that #870 (comment) is pending only means that we need to use an older version, which then duplicates dependencies but that's tracked in #870 . closing here.
core currently includes two TLS stacks, native and rustls. rust-native does not yet support async -- maybe @dignifiedquire could clarify how far that is away. reqwest (used by core) in turn does not support rustls -- not sure how far that is away. IMO the API of rust-native is much nicer than with rustls but that's not a big inconvenience at this point. We want to get rid of one of the TLS stacks, also to reduce size of the compiled lib which is shipped in the releases. See also #870 how the two-tls situation increases compile times etc. If one of the two stacks leads to a lesser increase in file size, i'd have a preference for that, at least in the longer term.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: