-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 193
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
Add protocol specific routers #1666
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
1d8cb1f
Add protocol specific routers
a1f2e3e
Merge branch 'main' into harryb/protocol-specific-router
hlbarber 17ad96a
Add copyright
81b4791
Merge branch 'harryb/protocol-specific-router' of github.com:awslabs/…
1f50577
Add documentation
f76bb0e
Address PR feedback
5eddefa
Add logging
242f609
Tweak error Response builder
1ec5578
Remove excess bound
1f3aba8
Switch RequestSpec and S
2f9a02f
Use const CONTENT_TYPE
7256575
Merge branch 'main' into harryb/protocol-specific-router
hlbarber 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
Add
#[doc(hidden)]
? Since only codegen needs to be aware of this 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.
There's already a
#[doc(hidden)]
at the module level inlib.rs
. TheResponse
above is double hidden, which threw me off too - should I remove that?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.
Ah, missed that. Thought it wasn't because
Response
was doc hidden.Ok then, no need to double hide
Response
--- although, I'm thinking that middleware authors will need access to it right?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 that third-parties might want to see
IntoResponse
andFromRequest
eventually? They'll need it to implement their own protocols etc. I was thinking of keeping them hidden until everything in the RFC has been implemented. I'm not 100% sure on whetherIntoResponse
needs a second parameterization over the operation, which would be a breaking change.I don't mind (double?) unhiding
Response
, no strong feelings about that.