Skip to content
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

Support for dynamic port allocation #134

Closed

Conversation

mainbrain
Copy link

@mainbrain mainbrain commented Mar 8, 2024

Support for dynamic port allocation

resolves #128

@mainbrain mainbrain force-pushed the dynamic_port_allocation branch from 3b87fb0 to 2d7e3fe Compare March 8, 2024 21:58
@mainbrain mainbrain force-pushed the dynamic_port_allocation branch from 2d7e3fe to 683f8ed Compare March 8, 2024 22:13
@mainbrain mainbrain changed the title Resolves #128 Support for dynamic port location Mar 9, 2024
@mainbrain mainbrain changed the title Support for dynamic port location Support for dynamic port allocation Mar 9, 2024
@@ -137,10 +136,6 @@ func (c Config) BinaryRepositoryURL(binaryRepositoryURL string) Config {
return c
}

func (c Config) GetConnectionURL() string {
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We won't be able to remove this without bumping a major version, which I think we're unlikely to want to do for this change. Can you try and work it into here?

Copy link
Author

@mainbrain mainbrain Mar 23, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I already pitched a solution attempt in our discussion in the issue within config.go and we both agreed that there should be no major logic there.

Copy link
Owner

@fergusstrange fergusstrange left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey @mainbrain these changes wouldn't be backwards compatible meaning we'd need to do a major version bump, which I'd like to avoid. Can you have a go working the changes to be backwards compatible? Cheers

@mainbrain mainbrain requested a review from fergusstrange March 17, 2024 20:00
@fergusstrange
Copy link
Owner

Hey @mainbrain I'll take a look again this weekend if you've made above requested changes.

@mainbrain
Copy link
Author

Hey @mainbrain these changes wouldn't be backwards compatible meaning we'd need to do a major version bump, which I'd like to avoid. Can you have a go working the changes to be backwards compatible? Cheers

I pushed another variant. Maybe that's more to your liking. The trade off is: We are backwards compatible but the interface is less consistent, so I had to write more documentation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support for dynamic port allocation
2 participants