What prevents supporting a sync/blocking API?

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Issue #90 was closed with "blocking (synchronous) API is not a goal for fastwebsockets" — curious about the reasoning behind this.

Is the core frame parser fundamentally tied to `AsyncRead + AsyncWrite`, or is it more of a scoping/maintenance decision?

Asking because we run latency-sensitive WebSocket consumers on CPU-pinned threads with non-blocking `TcpStream` + epoll busy-polling (no async runtime). The frame parsing performance of fastwebsockets is very appealing, but wrapping it in a single-threaded tokio runtime adds indirection we'd prefer to avoid.

If the frame codec were generic over `Read + Write` (with the async variant as a thin wrapper), it would open up fastwebsockets to a wider set of use cases without changing the async API. Happy to contribute if this is something you'd consider.

Start by examining the core frame parser and its AsyncRead + AsyncWrite bounds, then compare those requirements with the proposed Read + Write abstraction and the existing async API. Done would require a clear maintainer decision on whether a synchronous API fits the project's goals and an agreed implementation scope.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.