Yaroslav

@JeneaVranceanu I'm a simple person. I see PR that doesn't affects any code — I approve it 😀 Just kidding. I've reviewed your changes carefully and those few that appeared...

> I'll have to take some time to consider if this is the solution we want to use. I do not see at the moment anything wrong about but I...

> Additionally, there is always a security risk when it comes to the code that is responsible for key-pair generation, signing and encryption overall. It's best to stick to some...

Hi, @MarcoDotIO thanks for your participation in our project. Just one question, how badly do you want this feature?

Thanks you once again for such detailed feedback, could you elaborate it a bit their use cases on the client side? It's just, we're now loosely maintaining this lib as...

Sorry for being away for a while, and I really value your efforts to participate with our project. So, in given circumstances, I believe that the most effective way of...

Dude, are you sure about library version? It's just you know living that long is illegal in some places.

It could be missed in the rush, so I just refresh it: why do we consider adding websocket as 4.0 feature rather then minor update for the 3.* one @JeneaVranceanu?

@JeneaVranceanu I'm really curious why the WebSocket will lead to changes that you've mentioned. Looking forward to hear from you, no rushing tho.

@albertopeam it was a self notes that I've made in sake of convenience while developing 3.0.0 so it's all deprecated for now and should be deleted from code.