-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
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
Feature/snet rewrite #811
Feature/snet rewrite #811
Conversation
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.
Overall good job. I think the naming renaming of certain structures and usage of dmsgC
instead of generic snet
structures is helpful. In general the refactor seems to go in the right direction and works. I have not checked if the performance is significantly changed but that is not very important anyways.
Two comments:
- I am not yet sure if there is more work to be done on structs we define to wrap connections yet. If I see correctly we have a
type Conn interface
and atype Client interface
. The naming of Conn may be somewhat confusing as it is a wrapper for anet.Conn
and maybe should be calledTransport
? I am also thinking about how to simplify each of these structures (including managed transport).
One of the ideas I had and discussed with Synth was to get rid of redialing and status logic as described in #830
Will have a look and see if there are further ways to reduce complexity in these interfaces and structures.
- All of the tests resembling integration tests should be torn our here and moved to the services repo. There is an open PR where we can just comment on with tests that should be redone there with docker setup.
Rewriting network initialization to gain init performance, as well as cleaner code and better organization in snet and transport packages.
Did you run
make format && make check
?not yet
Fixes #760
Changes:
How to test this PR: