Update coro-websocket.lua

[filispeen]

Removed "?" from exclusion and added guard invalid url/host and default empty pathname to "/".

But i have a question, why did you add exclusion for query???

[truemedian]

But i have a question, why did you add exclusion for query???

Wonderful question that probably doesn't have an answer anymore, it's been like that since the introduction of coro-websocket and hasn't been used anywhere since its introduction.

It's probably more worthwhile to simply delete this function and convince anyone using it to use something that can correctly parse a URL according to the RFC, like luvit/url

[filispeen]

But i have a question, why did you add exclusion for query???

Wonderful question that probably doesn't have an answer anymore, it's been like that since the introduction of coro-websocket and hasn't been used anywhere since its introduction.

It's probably more worthwhile to simply delete this function and convince anyone using it to use something that can correctly parse a URL according to the RFC, like luvit/url

I dunno about luvit/url cause i didn't tried it yet, but i just added fixed parser into my project as utils.lua. Everything works and not raping my head for a whole week cause i dont know why code is not doing as i intended. But i think this might be better to use, ty @truemedian for your advice

[Bilal2453]

I have a branch somewhere where I refactored this whole URL parsing mess then forgot about it because of how many places we reimplement the same URL parsing, just worse. It seems to me like it is a side effect of how the coro- packages were designed to be self-dependant but also were basically a proof of concept, which led to reimplementations that are just worse.

Would love to see us dropping them entirely in favor of luvit/url even if that means an extra dependency.