Add ConcurrencyBackend interface
#60
Merged
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
|
If we go for trio support based on this, then I think that
Tho it's not obvs. to me if we should support this in the lib itself. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The low-level "make an outbound connection, and return a pair of streams" is now wrapped up in a
ConcurrencyBackendinterface. I think this should allow us to add trio support fairly easily if we want it.Also it'll make it much easier for us to fully test out the HTTP handling without neccessarily needing to spin up a server to test against, since we can inject a backend that presents the stream interfaces without actually connecting to the network.