-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
[public-api] Refactor to use connect handlers, route to HTTP server #13736
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Asking for posterity: Is there an alternative to riddling our implementation with references to
connect
? It's not a big concern, as the changes look rather mechanical (near search-and-replace). Still wondering if there is a way to have aConnectProxy[T]
that does the wrapping for us (I'm aware that this might be a tough ask for Go 🙃 ).Additionally, would it maybe make sense to hide a bit of the connect-specific function (like
connect.NewError
) behind minimal wrappers? IMO those can help explain why you have to do it this way, and not use the regular gRPC errors 🤔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.
In general, we don't want to make this magic. We also want to stay as close to the official connect documentation as possible such that we don't need to re-teach things internally.
If it's just a wrapper, it's not adding match aside from importing the function from elsewhere (and that place imports connect).
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.
IMO the ideal situation would be if we could stick to the gRPC documentation. But I can definitely live with this. 💯 It's not in the interest of connect, but maybe someone writes a wrapper at some point that we can use. 🙂
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.
Yes, but if we stuck with gRPC documentation then you'd not know you can invoke it with curl and use JSON as the payload - in Go principles we should not hide things, and the difference (or complexity) should be visible directly
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
I know, I know... but abstraction is a powerful concept as well 😆 (if it does not leak too much, hence I'm fine with as-is).