RFC: Option 1: config different LB selections policies by inheritance from a base builder #2750
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
|
|
||
| import io.servicetalk.client.api.LoadBalancedConnection; | ||
|
|
||
| public interface P2CLoadBalancerBuilder<ResolvedAddress, C extends LoadBalancedConnection> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💯 agreed, this is the least preferred approach. The main reason is that every LoadBalancerBuilder will have to also have a ServiceLoaded provider. With growing number of providers, it makes it harder to control the behavior that way.
|
Nobody likes this one, so closing. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is the lesser of my two preferred ways to configure different load balancing policies. It uses a base LoadBalancerBuilder from which we can derive new builders from.
I would prefer the pattern in #2749.