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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Feature: generic serializers #83

Closed
tikue opened this issue Jan 25, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Feature: generic serializers #83

tikue opened this issue Jan 25, 2017 · 4 comments
Assignees
@shaladdle @tikue
Labels
feature

Comments

@tikue
Copy link
Collaborator

tikue commented Jan 25, 2017

Currently we hardcode bincode. If we support generic serializers then bincode should become a default feature so it can be disabled.
@tikue tikue added the feature label Feb 23, 2017
@tikue
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tikue commented Mar 6, 2017 •
edited
Loading

tarpc::Error would either need to become generic over two error types, application and serialization errors, or we could just make the serialize error variant store a string Box<std::error::Error>. Would that be awful?

Another option would be to just treat all deserialize errors as permanent/non-retryable -- they probably represent application errors anyway. It'd also be symmetrical with serialize errors?

@tikue tikue assigned tikue and shaladdle and unassigned tikue Mar 6, 2017
@tikue tikue mentioned this issue Nov 7, 2017
Closed
@kyegupov
Copy link

kyegupov commented Nov 8, 2017

How about an even wilder idea: generic transport? Imagine using tarpc codegen to build HTTP REST services, emulating the functionality of Jersey and Feign.

That would mean, of course, building some equivalent of JAX-RS annotations, which is another can of worms...

@tikue
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tikue commented Nov 8, 2017

I think that's covered by #38. A long time ago, when I first started tarpc, the transport actually was generic. But I felt usability suffered. Could be worth revisiting if the landscape is different now!

@tikue tikue mentioned this issue Sep 15, 2018
Merged
tikue added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 16, 2018
@tikue
Remove deprecated tokio-proto and replace with homegrown rpc framework (
905e5be 
#199)

# New Crates

- crate rpc contains the core client/server request-response framework, as well as a transport trait.
- crate bincode-transport implements a transport that works almost exactly as tarpc works today (not to say it's wire-compatible).
- crate trace has some foundational types for tracing. This isn't really fleshed out yet, but it's useful for in-process log tracing, at least.

All crates are now at the top level. e.g. tarpc-plugins is now tarpc/plugins rather than tarpc/src/plugins. tarpc itself is now a *very* small code surface, as most functionality has been moved into the other more granular crates.

# New Features
- deadlines: all requests specify a deadline, and a server will stop processing a response when past its deadline.
- client cancellation propagation: when a client drops a request, the client sends a message to the server informing it to cancel its response. This means cancellations can propagate across multiple server hops.
- trace context stuff as mentioned above
- more server configuration for total connection limits, per-connection request limits, etc.

# Removals
- no more shutdown handle.  I left it out for now because of time and not being sure what the right solution is.
- all async now, no blocking stub or server interface. This helps with maintainability, and async/await makes async code much more usable. The service trait is thusly renamed Service, and the client is renamed Client.
- no built-in transport. Tarpc is now transport agnostic (see bincode-transport for transitioning existing uses).
- going along with the previous bullet, no preferred transport means no TLS support at this time. We could make a tls transport or make bincode-transport compatible with TLS.
- a lot of examples were removed because I couldn't keep up with maintaining all of them. Hopefully the ones I kept are still illustrative.
- no more plugins!

# Open Questions

1. Should client.send() return `Future<Response>` or `Future<Future<Response>>`? The former appears more ergonomic but it doesn’t allow concurrent requests with a single client handle. The latter is less ergonomic but yields back control of the client once it’s successfully sent out the request. Should we offer fns for both?
2. Should rpc service! Fns take &mut self or &self or self? The service needs to impl Clone anyway, technically we only need to clone it once per connection, and then leave it up to the user to decide if they want to clone it per RPC. In practice, everyone doing nontrivial stuff will need to clone it per RPC, I think.
3. Do the request/response structs look ok?
4. Is supporting server shutdown/lameduck important?

Fixes #178 #155 #124 #104 #83 #38
@tikue
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tikue commented Oct 17, 2018

Obsoleted by #199.

@tikue tikue closed this as completed Oct 17, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@shaladdle shaladdle

@tikue tikue

Labels
feature
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@kyegupov @shaladdle @tikue