Add support for HTTP stream instances #21
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #8.
This adds support for
IncomingMessage
,OutgoingMessage
,ServerResponse
andClientRequest
from thehttp
core module. Those inherit from a legacyStream
base class then add stream methods manually, so their inheritance is a little odd, but they follow the stream's documented API. This is due to avoid double buffering, for performance reasons.This PR relies on documented fields for the streams API, instead of the current approach which uses undocumented ones. This was suggested in #8 (comment), and seems to make sense.
I also included fields like
readableObjectMode
/writableObjectMode
so we are sure we are dealing with Node.js streams since those property names are quite specific.In principle, this should not be a breaking change. However, it is not impossible for someone to be passing weird stream objects which do not follow the documented streams API. Therefore, to be on the safe side, it might be good to consider it a breaking change, even if it should not be in principle.