Allow containers to specify their own serialization #604
Conversation
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
frankmcsherry
force-pushed
the
container_bytes
branch
from
543779a to
b415fa0
Compare
frankmcsherry
force-pushed
the
container_bytes
branch
from
b415fa0 to
a1e012e
Compare
Member
Author
|
I think this is pretty harmless, unless I got the logic wrong. We'll want to think about the public trait surface before releasing though. |
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR allows containers to specify how to write to and read from
Bytes. This should open the door up to custom zero-copy implementations, as should be allowed bycolumnar. I haven't prototyped that up yet, and we may learn about the container trait when doing so (right now: one container for both send and recv; should be workable, but this will let us test).Design-wise, not in love with the new trait, but it allows us to provide implementations for containers here, rather than e.g. in
communication, or (probably where they belong) incontainerafter bringing in dependencies onbincodeand the like. Up for discussing that, but I think we just need a trait somewhere, and implementations very near by. Otherwise, we need to have some wrappers and rework a lot of code, which doesn't sound as good.