Skip to content

Conversation

@emvoo
Copy link

@emvoo emvoo commented Apr 24, 2019

No description provided.

return base64.URLEncoding.EncodeToString(random)
}

func (p *ProducerConn) GrpcClient () *grpc.ClientConn {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

exported method ProducerConn.GrpcClient should have comment or be unexported

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

comment added

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

also it should be GRPCClient although it looks a bit worse

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39830166/glued-acronyms-and-golang-naming-convention

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

changed to GRPCClient

return nil, ErrNotConnected
}

var working bool
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

	var (
		working bool
		problems []string
	)
	
	switch cc.GetState() {

looks better imho

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

good catch

@SpeedyCoder
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good, but do you maybe want to try using substrate instead? https://github.com/uw-labs/substrate It gives you basically the same api with synchronous adapters, but you can also use the async version if you need better throughput. We did a bit of work there recently, so it might be hopefully better behaved than this old client...

@emvoo
Copy link
Author

emvoo commented Apr 24, 2019

Looks good, but do you maybe want to try using substrate instead? https://github.com/uw-labs/substrate It gives you basically the same api with synchronous adapters, but you can also use the async version if you need better throughput. We did a bit of work there recently, so it might be hopefully better behaved than this old client...

The same was suggested by @thinktainer and implementation is on the way. Question then is do we still want this added here for possible future use?

@SpeedyCoder
Copy link
Contributor

I think, it's fine to merge, we just want to encourage people to use substrate more

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.

4 participants