Commit Graph

13 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Tim Kuehn
7e521768ab Prepare for v0.21.0 release. 2020-06-26 20:05:02 -07:00
Patrick Elsen
617daebb88 Add tarpc::server proc-macro as syntactic sugar for async methods. (#302)
The tarpc::server proc-macro can be used to annotate implementations of
services to turn async functions into the proper declarations needed
for tarpc to be able to call them.

This uses the assert_type_eq crate to check that the transformations
applied by the tarpc::server proc macro are correct and lead to code
that compiles.
2020-05-16 10:25:25 -07:00
Tim Kuehn
d905bc1591 Prepare for tarpc release v0.20.0 2019-12-11 20:47:56 -08:00
Oleg Nosov
85d49477f5 Updated and simplified macros (#290)
* syn updated to latest version
* quote updated to latest version
* proc-macro-2 updated to latest version
* Performance improvements
* Don't create unnecessary TokenStreams for output types
2019-12-11 12:28:24 -08:00
Artem Vorotnikov
709b966150 Update to Tokio 0.2 and futures 0.3 (#277) 2019-11-27 19:53:44 -08:00
Artem Vorotnikov
5aa4a2cef6 tokio 0.2.0-alpha.2 2019-08-19 23:13:06 -07:00
Tim Kuehn
41c1aafaf7 Update tokio to v0.2.0-alpha.1
As part of this, I made an optional tokio feature which, when enabled,
adds utility functions that spawn on the default tokio executor. This
allows for the removal of the runtime crate.

On the one hand, this makes the spawning utils slightly less generic. On
the other hand:

- The fns are just helpers and are easily rewritten by the user.
- Tokio is the clear dominant futures executor, so most people will just
  use these versions.
2019-08-08 21:53:36 -07:00
Tim Kuehn
5c485fe608 Add some tests for snake to camel case conversion. 2019-07-30 00:52:30 -07:00
Tim Kuehn
abb0b5b3ac Rewrite to use proc_macro_attribute 2019-07-29 22:04:04 -07:00
Tim Kuehn
4e0be5b626 Publish tarpc v0.15.0 2019-03-26 21:13:41 -07:00
Tim Kuehn
0f36985440 Update for latest changes to futures.
Fixes #209.
2019-01-17 10:37:03 -08:00
Tim
29067b7773 Prepare for release 2018-10-16 22:19:16 -07:00
Tim
905e5be8bb Remove deprecated tokio-proto and replace with homegrown rpc framework (#199)
# New Crates

- crate rpc contains the core client/server request-response framework, as well as a transport trait.
- crate bincode-transport implements a transport that works almost exactly as tarpc works today (not to say it's wire-compatible).
- crate trace has some foundational types for tracing. This isn't really fleshed out yet, but it's useful for in-process log tracing, at least.

All crates are now at the top level. e.g. tarpc-plugins is now tarpc/plugins rather than tarpc/src/plugins. tarpc itself is now a *very* small code surface, as most functionality has been moved into the other more granular crates.

# New Features
- deadlines: all requests specify a deadline, and a server will stop processing a response when past its deadline.
- client cancellation propagation: when a client drops a request, the client sends a message to the server informing it to cancel its response. This means cancellations can propagate across multiple server hops.
- trace context stuff as mentioned above
- more server configuration for total connection limits, per-connection request limits, etc.

# Removals
- no more shutdown handle.  I left it out for now because of time and not being sure what the right solution is.
- all async now, no blocking stub or server interface. This helps with maintainability, and async/await makes async code much more usable. The service trait is thusly renamed Service, and the client is renamed Client.
- no built-in transport. Tarpc is now transport agnostic (see bincode-transport for transitioning existing uses).
- going along with the previous bullet, no preferred transport means no TLS support at this time. We could make a tls transport or make bincode-transport compatible with TLS.
- a lot of examples were removed because I couldn't keep up with maintaining all of them. Hopefully the ones I kept are still illustrative.
- no more plugins!

# Open Questions

1. Should client.send() return `Future<Response>` or `Future<Future<Response>>`? The former appears more ergonomic but it doesn’t allow concurrent requests with a single client handle. The latter is less ergonomic but yields back control of the client once it’s successfully sent out the request. Should we offer fns for both?
2. Should rpc service! Fns take &mut self or &self or self? The service needs to impl Clone anyway, technically we only need to clone it once per connection, and then leave it up to the user to decide if they want to clone it per RPC. In practice, everyone doing nontrivial stuff will need to clone it per RPC, I think.
3. Do the request/response structs look ok?
4. Is supporting server shutdown/lameduck important?

Fixes #178 #155 #124 #104 #83 #38
2018-10-16 11:26:27 -07:00