-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
Remove Boxing of response futures #6
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
4bcbbb2
to
bb9d18c
Compare
531d6bf
to
cb1df16
Compare
@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ | |||
//! the client helper as `Client` in the protocol module you're working with (e.g., | |||
//! [`pipeline::Client`]), and the server helper as `Server` in the same place. | |||
#![deny(missing_docs)] | |||
#![feature(type_alias_impl_trait)] |
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.
I wonder if you can feature flag this, a bit unfortunate since this doesn't seem like its going to hit stable anytime soon :(
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.
I really want this PR to land, but yeah, not looking to stabilize for a while. It would essentially be an unstable feature flag, which isn't great.. :/
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.
I wonder if you could do this with some sort of generic or something maybe but yeah, go head we can fix later but we should probably not get things stuck on the nightly drug. I just asked in zulip about this feature not gonna be anytime soon :(
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.
So you're proposing we fold this under, like feature = "nightly-nobox"
? I don't think that'll work, because then the feature wouldn't be additive. If something that depends on tokio-tower
without the feature somehow got compiled with the feature, it might not compile.
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 im not sure but happy to not block this now for it.
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.
I think putting a version out there with non-additive features is just asking for downstream users to have issues sadly. I think it's fine to keep the Box
version for now, and then have an explicit git
opt-in for those (like me) who want to squeeze the last little bit out.
4c2c01f
to
4254420
Compare
6476a20
to
e58bb90
Compare
Waiting on rust-lang/rust#63063.
Waiting on rust-lang/rust#63063.