Make lock container configurable #9
Merged
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
|
Will merge today either way; you will be able to plug-in something like dry-container in case you're not comfortable with using |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
After seeing fork https://github.com/SolarCS/sidekiq-lock and catching up with some books on design ;) I got inspired to make this small addition - it makes gem more extendable - for whatever reason you might need
One would argue why even bother with defining lock method on worker instance in the first place now - but I don't want to introduce any hardcore backward-incompatible changes
I also got curious @ziolmar - did you encountered some issues when using
Thread.currentwhile simply spinning few sidekiq processes? What was the use case/scenario? 馃 Eager to share maybe?