websocket channels

[emctoo]

No description provided.

[emctoo]

Things planed in my mind:

• flake reads version from Cargo.toml
• options for Websocket host and port
• maybe a feature flag for Websocket support

[xoolive]

Thanks a lot for the contributions. It will be helpful as is for now.

Before merging anything, I would like to have things in separate pull requests though.

As far as I understood, I see several contributions:

• the logging possibilities
• the flake support, previously in Add nix flake support #6 (we could reopen it there)
• the web socket for serving decoded messages;
• the web socket for getting a binary feed

Also, jet1090 already uses one web server library called warp which supports web sockets, so I would rather not add another similar library Axum (then we don't need to think too much about features 😉)

[emctoo]

@xoolive I know it's not a good practice to create such a meta PR. Make it hard to review.

I worked on this locally to explore different ideas. Let's keep it here as it does help in some cases, and for communication.

You have made a good summary. I will split it into small ones. As for the http library, I have no preference. I choose Axum simply because I know a little more about it. Anyway, Challenge accepted.

[xoolive]

@emctoo if that's ok with you, I would like to merge that one too. The idea would be to only have the data distributed in websockets for now (so that it works with tangram), and keep the data source as websocket format, as we discussed this morning for a separate PR.

[xoolive]

@emctoo Should we keep this open or close it?