WebSocketClient uses wsfactory in the constructor before setting is possible (regression)

[Joris-van-der-Wel]

WebSocketClient uses wsfactory in its constructor (https://github.com/TooTallNate/Java-WebSocket/blob/master/src/main/java/org/java_websocket/client/WebSocketClient.java#L109), however an instance of WebSocketClientFactory can not be passed in the constructor.
There is only a setter called setWebSocketFactory (https://github.com/TooTallNate/Java-WebSocket/blob/master/src/main/java/org/java_websocket/client/WebSocketClient.java#L389), which can of course only be called after the constructor has run.
This causes WebSocketClient to always use the default constructor (https://github.com/TooTallNate/Java-WebSocket/blob/master/src/main/java/org/java_websocket/client/WebSocketClient.java#L72)

I am not sure what the best solution would be. Break the API again and add WebSocketClientFactory to the constructor and remove setWebSocketFactory? (which is what I am doing temporarily).

Or defer the calls to the factory until after the constructor somehow?

Thanks.

[Davidiusdadi]

hey check out #205

The WebSocketClientFactory will then not be necessary any more.
If you want to do wss check out:
Davidiusdadi@9b0a4b8#L1L82

[Joris-van-der-Wel]

Ah, I was using it to add some meta data to each WebSocket (by extending WebSocketImpl) for both client and server. This was easier to implement than a WeakHashMap, and the usage of abstract factories is in my opinion cleaner.

I would prefer not to lose abstract factories, but I can use a WeakHashMap if needed (the performance difference would be probably be minor in my case).

I would also be helped by a simple empty Object reference I can use to store stuff in, but that might be considered less clean.

[marci4]

Issue should be already solved.

Greetings
Marci4