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

Support Alternative Transports #462

Open
cretz opened this issue Feb 6, 2018 · 1 comment
Open

Support Alternative Transports #462

cretz opened this issue Feb 6, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@cretz
Copy link

cretz commented Feb 6, 2018

I see that the only way to use this framework is to marry yourself to the Iron HTTP framework which is very unfortunate. It sadly seems to be baked into every corner from config expecting sockets to API-adding callbacks returning Iron handlers. I have another transport I would like to use. Is this project too far along to make a backwards incompatible changes like abstracting out to a transport (and transport config) trait?

@Maria-Nosyk
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for the issue. We are aware of it, however, we are considering a different solution. We intend to introduce some transport abstraction so that it should become an inner implementation detail of Exonum. Although the issue is not currently in progress, we believe it will be resolved in the mid-urgent perspective.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants