-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 184
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
Replace superagent with fetch #236
Comments
I'd like to bump this feature request, because I'm curious how folks feel about it as a future direction. Would you accept a PR with it? Do you think it's a step forward or a step back? Also, if you do think it's a good idea, I'm curious if you'd want it to be opt-in or opt-out. Right now client code opts in to the ReactServerAgent cache by requiring ReactServerAgent. If we instead intercepted all calls to |
Could we separate the data bundling ( Then, I could do
Yeah, that's a concern. It has the advantage of being explicit, though, so the potential for surprise is lower once you know about it. But it doesn't have the same magic factor of "hey, this just works!" |
I'm not personally married to the idea of ReactServerAgent/anything-built-on-superagent. The builder pattern makes writing tests a bit of a PITA. I think provided we maintain feature compatibility (and at least have an upgrade path) there's no reason we wouldn't entertain the idea of switching? In particular, I think it'd be nice to have
I know we're using ReactServerAgent internally for file uploads in at least one scenario, so it'd be good for that path to keep working as well (seems like it would, since github/polyfill seems to support it) I also agree with the things @gigabo said, I just type slower so he beat me to them. :) |
We might also consider a "bring your own" approach.
Migrated from #50
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: