Add support for response compression #1
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This uses a middleware pattern similar to the Gorilla Handlers to make it easier to extend this handler further.
This makes MailHog more suitable for use in environments where testing is happening over remote links. Without this, the main page load will often respond with 10MB of data.
|
thanks again @danielwhite 👍 |
ian-kent
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 6, 2015
Add support for response compression
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This utilises the Gorilla CompressHandler to compress responses if the client supports it.
The primary advantage is when MailHog is that this drastically reduces the response times when operating over a remote link. Without it, a single request for 50 messages can easily start reaching 10MB.
Given the push-button approach that MailHog is intended to support, requiring it to be deployed behind a "real" web-server seems like an extra unnecessary complication.
For this to work as expected, mailhog/MailHog-UI#9 is necessary to provide valid content types for all static content.