lsquic

I referred to sockets as an API design, not to express an opinion on whether you should place your protocol implementations inside or outside the kernel. (Although that’s undeniably an interesting question that by all rights should have been settled by now, but isn’t.) Even then, I didn’t mean you should reproduce the Berkeley socket API verbatim (ZeroMQ-style); multiple streams per connection does not sound like a particularly good fit to it (although apparently people have managed to cram SCTP in there[1]?). I only meant that with the current mainstream libraries[2,3,4], establishing a QUIC connection and transmitting bytestreams or datagrams over it seems quite a bit more involved than performing the equivalent TCP actions using sockets. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6458 [2] https://quiche.googlesource.com/quiche [3] ht

> the word "thread" does not appear anywhere. because it doesn't use threads? The library is intended to be used inside an eventloop. I think the same also applies for other typical transport libraries - e.g. HTTP/2 or TLS ones. > Not sure why one would choose this over QUICHE. I think there are certainly reasons. lsquic seems a lot more optimized than quiche and most other libraries out there. It makes use of some pretty clever datastructures (e.g. https://github.com/litespeedtech/lsquic/blob/master/src/libl...), and likely has a drastically lower rate of heap allocations than other implementations. Some of those things - like the use of intrusive linked lists - are unfortunately not that easy to apply in Rust. I wouldn't be suprised if lsquic outperforms various other implementations - and if that's important to users it might be a reas