-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 277
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
retry: Change Policy
to accept &mut self
#681
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a859b22
retry: Change `Policy` to accept `&mut self`
LucioFranco 416e323
Remove `Unpin` requirement for policy
LucioFranco f028e65
Improve docs
LucioFranco c047a8c
Relax service bounds
LucioFranco c4f45be
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into lucio/update-policy
LucioFranco a930936
Update doc tests for Budget
LucioFranco a12f517
Merge branch 'master' into lucio/update-policy
LucioFranco b98f538
Apply suggestions from code review
LucioFranco e679d5d
Rename Checking to Waiting
LucioFranco e0aa369
style
LucioFranco 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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.
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.
changing this to return a
Future<Output = ()>
and duplicating thePolicy
usingClone
rather than having the future return a new policy definitely simplifies things, but it occurs to me that asynchronous work can no longer be performed in order to update thePolicy
. i can't immediately come up with a reason that it would be necessary to generate the nextPolicy
asynchronously, but it seems like it could be worth thinking about before we commit to this design...?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.
thinking about it, i suppose that if an implementation needed to modify the
Policy
after the future's completion, it could always clone anArc
ed shared state into itsFuture
...this may introduce some overhead over the current approach, but I don't really think that use case is common enough that it's particularly important to worry about...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.
Yeah, I don't think that use case is something we should support with that level and anyways taking a lock on an uncontested arc/mutex should be very cheap and much cheaper than request io etc.