-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 402
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Named futures + replace NewConnection with Connection methods #1357
Conversation
Sorry for the slow review... |
No worries; it's not particularly pressing, nor a rebase hazard. |
9db0829
to
df65cd7
Compare
df65cd7
to
399c595
Compare
Still TODO: Actually getting rid of |
That seems to have panned out to a pleasant simplification in the tests/examples. Less |
199c724
to
6f4a7be
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work, and actually -100 lines!
f5fe239
to
2ee0aa4
Compare
Reduces indirection and allows us to avoid cloning an `Arc` each time one of the relevant events is waited on, and opens the door to handwritten futures built on them.
2ee0aa4
to
a08c060
Compare
Provides a more natural alternative to the streams in NewConnection
a08c060
to
4fc71b6
Compare
Experimenting with a return to named 'static futures, motivated by downstream use cases. See e.g. hyperium/h3#80.
Open questions:
Also included is an idea to drop
NewConnection
in favor of unobtrusive async methods onConnection
, bundled because they would have to be rewritten to match this PR's approach if it move forwards. I'd like feedback on this change before I invest the effort to actually removeNewConnection
and update all the examples/docs.