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

Add context field to HTTPServerRequest #1550

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@thaven
Contributor

thaven commented Aug 16, 2016

The context field allows application specific data to be passed down the chain of request processors.
Solves vibe-d/vibe.d#1529

Added context field to HTTPServerRequest
The context field allows application specific data to be passed down the chain of request processors.
Solves vibe-d/vibe.d#1529
@wilzbach

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wilzbach

wilzbach Feb 6, 2017

Contributor

@thaven your PR needs a rebase.

@s-ludwig what's your opinion on this? On #1529 there are many people in favor of a way to store custom information within the current request.

Contributor

wilzbach commented Feb 6, 2017

@thaven your PR needs a rebase.

@s-ludwig what's your opinion on this? On #1529 there are many people in favor of a way to store custom information within the current request.

@s-ludwig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@s-ludwig

s-ludwig Feb 7, 2017

Member

Definitely makes sense, I even remember having implemented this once, but for some reason it then got deferred. I'm just trying to remember now which name I've used and whether "context" is any better or worse.

One thing regarding the implementation: DictionaryList!(Variant, true, 4) would probably be a better idea than Variant[string], so that a few entries can be set without additional GC allocations.

Member

s-ludwig commented Feb 7, 2017

Definitely makes sense, I even remember having implemented this once, but for some reason it then got deferred. I'm just trying to remember now which name I've used and whether "context" is any better or worse.

One thing regarding the implementation: DictionaryList!(Variant, true, 4) would probably be a better idea than Variant[string], so that a few entries can be set without additional GC allocations.

@schveiguy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@schveiguy

schveiguy Feb 16, 2017

Contributor

One thing regarding the implementation

Sounds good, I really look forward to this update! @s-ludwig, you can just edit the PR branch, no? It's possible @thaven isn't working on this any more as the PR is so old.

Contributor

schveiguy commented Feb 16, 2017

One thing regarding the implementation

Sounds good, I really look forward to this update! @s-ludwig, you can just edit the PR branch, no? It's possible @thaven isn't working on this any more as the PR is so old.

@thaven

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thaven

thaven Feb 17, 2017

Contributor

I do not have much spare time at the moment, so feel free to edit the PR.
@s-ludwig: Using DictionaryList seems a good idea to me.

Contributor

thaven commented Feb 17, 2017

I do not have much spare time at the moment, so feel free to edit the PR.
@s-ludwig: Using DictionaryList seems a good idea to me.

@s-ludwig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@s-ludwig

s-ludwig Feb 17, 2017

Member

@thaven: Alright, I'll change to DictionaryList and merge!

Member

s-ludwig commented Feb 17, 2017

@thaven: Alright, I'll change to DictionaryList and merge!

@s-ludwig s-ludwig closed this in 9d0a75b Feb 19, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment