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

Spec change for named client -> provider mappings #183

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 3, 2023

Conversation

justinabrahms
Copy link
Member

This PR

Adds support for mapping a named client to a specific provider.

Related Issues

Refs open-feature/ofep#56

Notes

Example of this implemented in Java: open-feature/java-sdk#388

@toddbaert
Copy link
Member

I think we might need additional point(s) about retrieving a named client bound to a non-default provider. I'm also wondering if we need to spec that clients retrieved with a given name return the same object instance (or do they just generate a new client associated with the provider bound to that name?)

Signed-off-by: Justin Abrahms <justin@abrah.ms>
Signed-off-by: Justin Abrahms <justin@abrah.ms>
@toddbaert toddbaert self-requested a review May 2, 2023 16:01
Copy link
Member

@toddbaert toddbaert left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is a good addition in principle, and the requirements are succinct enough. I'm still slightly concerned about this, but I'm not convinced it's something we need to specify.

Copy link
Member

@lukas-reining lukas-reining left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Spec seems fine like this and the use case is totally there.

Copy link
Member

@thomaspoignant thomaspoignant left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This addition will make the switch between providers even simpler 👏

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants