Skip to content

Conversation

t2m4k1
Copy link

@t2m4k1 t2m4k1 commented Aug 8, 2022

PR Type

Refactor

PR Checklist

  • Tests for the changes have been added / updated.
  • Documentation comments have been added / updated.
  • A changelog entry has been made for the appropriate packages.
  • Format code with the nightly rustfmt (cargo +nightly fmt).

Overview

Generally I'd like to discuss whether a ProtoBuf implementation for actix should be closer to the existing JSON implementation.
Original JSON implementation

For that reason I created this alternative ProtoBuf implementation.

  • Introduced compression
  • Extended ProtoConfig by allowing the definition of custom content-types & error-handler
  • Ported over most testcases from JSON implementation
  • Aligned code with preexisting JSON implementation
  • Not using LocalBoxFuture anymore

Since I'm rather new to programming in Rust I'd definitely love to hear your inputs on this.
I guess there might be some pitfalls I'm unaware of! 😄

Thanks for having a look

@robjtede robjtede added A-protobuf Project: actix-protobuf B-semver-major breaking change requiring a major version bump labels Aug 9, 2022
@t2m4k1 t2m4k1 force-pushed the alternative-protobuf-implementation branch from 43efb3f to 1780f7e Compare August 14, 2022 11:02
@t2m4k1 t2m4k1 marked this pull request as ready for review August 14, 2022 11:02
@t2m4k1 t2m4k1 force-pushed the alternative-protobuf-implementation branch from d660ebf to f13a001 Compare August 14, 2022 11:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-protobuf Project: actix-protobuf B-semver-major breaking change requiring a major version bump
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants