Add list of excluded features #112
Conversation
|
Thoughts about the 'ideal' |
| represent a significant uptick in complexity and thus is better suited to | ||
| other crates. | ||
|
|
||
| [`futures-concurrency`] provides a number of simple APIs for dealing with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm hesitant to officially recommend this crate because there was a lot of suspicious unsafe code when I looked at it before.
rust-lang/futures-rs#2851 (comment)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cc @yoshuawuyts
I think it's better now, but I'm not sure, I haven't fully reviewed the code.
| *Sidenote: [`Stream`], [`AsyncRead`] and [`AsyncWrite`] suffer from this same | ||
| problem to an extent. I think they could also be fixed by transforming their | ||
| `fn poll_[X]` functions into `async fn [X]` functions. However their APIs are | ||
| not broken to the point that [`Sink`]'s is.* |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I honestly don't think async fn in trait is the right solution (e.g., see rust-lang/rfcs#3710 (comment)).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Personally I disagree. In fact async-io basically supports the "N readers N writers" use case without much needed changes. Not to mention AsyncRead and AsyncWrite in their current state are problematic because they don't support completion based APIs like io_uring.
| - **Channels:** [`async-channel`] provides an asynchronous MPMC channel, while | ||
| [`oneshot`] provides an asynchronous oneshot channel. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
async-channel has an optimization to handle single capacity case well, and I think it is also okay to use it for oneshot case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First time I've heard of it! I'll give it a try.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My understanding is that async-channel requires an additional allocation for oneshot channels over the [oneshot] crate.
|
As for alternatives to Sink, there was some discussion about something like AsyncExtend (async-std has it but inefficient since that requires boxing). (Personally, I have the impression that Sink has (potential) users with a variety of different requirements, that there is not yet a solution that sufficiently meets them, and that abstraction is often not actually needed there in the first place.) |
notgull
force-pushed
the
notgull/list
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d55908e to
0742293
Compare
|
@notgull I only raised one concern, which didn't get addressed? |
notgull
force-pushed
the
notgull/list
branch
from
0742293 to
945a72c
Compare
|
I missed that one @zeenix, I've added a link to the future |
notgull
force-pushed
the
notgull/list
branch
from
945a72c to
efa021b
Compare
notgull
force-pushed
the
notgull/list
branch
from
efa021b to
d71c578
Compare
This commit adds a list of features that have been determined to be out of scope for `futures-lite`. The intent of this list is to inform users which features `futures-lite` does not implement, as well as potential contributors which PRs will not be accepted. cc #111 Signed-off-by: John Nunley <dev@notgull.net>
notgull
force-pushed
the
notgull/list
branch
from
d71c578 to
aa1a2fe
Compare
This commit adds a list of features that have been determined to be out
of scope for
futures-lite. The intent of this list is to inform userswhich features
futures-litedoes not implement, as well as potentialcontributors which PRs will not be accepted.
cc #111
cc @smol-rs/admins Please give me feedback on this document.