TESTING: Flatten Interface Design #28
Draft
Conversation
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I'm trying to validate if we can flatten the nested design of our service resources.
The problem is that each resource is executed in parallel, and this means even if we used a WaitGroup to try and synchronise a final
fastly_service_activationresource, we couldn't use it because thewg.Wait()might be called first or second while a whole bunch of other resources haven't even been triggered for processing yet.Options
There are two options for making this flatter design work...
depends_onwith a potentially long list of resources (backends, domains, logging, snippets, vcl etc).The latter is less problematic for users as it'll work for automated systems like CI.