Skip to content
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

Update to std::future::Future futures/0.3 #955

Closed
pythoneer opened this issue Jul 4, 2019 · 15 comments
Closed

Update to std::future::Future futures/0.3 #955

pythoneer opened this issue Jul 4, 2019 · 15 comments
Milestone

Comments

@pythoneer
Copy link
Member

@pythoneer pythoneer commented Jul 4, 2019

std::future::Future is now in stable with Rust 1.36.0. What are the plans for migration? I think one mayor obstacle is at which point tokio is using them right? Do they already have? i am a little bit out of the loop tokio-rs/tokio#1218

@fafhrd91

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@fafhrd91 fafhrd91 commented Jul 4, 2019

actix-service must be ported first. It does not depend on tokio

@leaxoy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@leaxoy leaxoy commented Jul 10, 2019

How about use tower::Service instead

@fafhrd91

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@fafhrd91 fafhrd91 commented Jul 10, 2019

I tried, it does not work well. Also I don’t want to depend on external dependency. So no tower

@leaxoy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@leaxoy leaxoy commented Jul 10, 2019

Okey, but can we provide a bridge between actix-service and tower as an optional feature?

@fafhrd91

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@fafhrd91 fafhrd91 commented Jul 10, 2019

There is project in actix-net repo. But I am not interested in that project. I can move it outside so other people can work on it

@naturallymitchell

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@naturallymitchell naturallymitchell commented Aug 12, 2019

Seems like a lot's going on now, eg tokio 0.2.0-alpha-1.

@leaxoy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@leaxoy leaxoy commented Aug 21, 2019

Async/Await stable pr is merged in today nightly version, should we start the process to update to std::future::Future

@semtexzv

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@semtexzv semtexzv commented Sep 14, 2019

I started the work on migrating the actix-net ecosystem, which is needed in order to convert the
actix-web libraries. Work can be seen here: actix/actix-net#45.

@fafhrd91 fafhrd91 added this to the 1.1 milestone Oct 3, 2019
@actix actix deleted a comment from zmlzm Oct 24, 2019
@kanekv

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@kanekv kanekv commented Nov 4, 2019

Are there any plans to migrate to tokio 0.2?

@Jonathas-Conceicao

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@Jonathas-Conceicao Jonathas-Conceicao commented Nov 4, 2019

The migration has started on actix-net, there's a migration tracking issue there.

@wigy-opensource-developer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@wigy-opensource-developer wigy-opensource-developer commented Nov 8, 2019

I see this issue assigned to the 1.1 milestone. I doubt you can migrate to tokio 0.2 and async-await without breaking changes in the API. Based on that and semantic versioning the next actix-web version should be 2.0, right?

@cdbattags

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cdbattags cdbattags commented Nov 8, 2019

The migration has started on actix-net, there's a migration tracking issue there.

We're going to need some help starting with the actix-service folder in actix-net.

See actix/actix-net#57.

If you'd like to help, please converse in that PR and and/or if you have work open a PR into actix-net/std-future branch.

We should be able to get this done pretty quickly just need some minds to start talking it through.

@cdbattags

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@cdbattags cdbattags commented Nov 14, 2019

Just landed in actix-net actix/actix-net#64

Fantastic work, @fafhrd91!

@0xpr03

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@0xpr03 0xpr03 commented Nov 14, 2019

the next actix-web version should be 2.0, right?

I'm all for that, people that need futures 0.1 and fixes can then still stay on 1.X
I think a 2.0 release would also reflect the amount of work that went into the async/await port and the changes when writing async stuff for actix-web.
(In other words: please don't repeat the 1.0.2 breaking changes.)

@fafhrd91

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@fafhrd91 fafhrd91 commented Nov 20, 2019

tracking issue #1166

@fafhrd91 fafhrd91 closed this Nov 20, 2019
@fafhrd91 fafhrd91 unpinned this issue Nov 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
10 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.