Update cache SPI and resource serialization #92
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you @wzy1935 , I've added another batch of comments
Can you also add a test that verifies the behavior of a shared cached? That is, if it has stored a response for a one reverse proxy instance, another proxy instance will not have to contact the backend.
|
Can you please rebase this PR? Thank you |
| @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ | |||
| import io.vertx.codegen.annotations.VertxGen; | |||
| import io.vertx.core.Future; | |||
| import io.vertx.core.Handler; | |||
| import io.vertx.core.Vertx; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| import io.vertx.core.Vertx; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps a leftover from a previous change?
|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Default constructor |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| * Default constructor | |
| * Default constructor. |
The Javadoc convention mandates there must be a first sentence ending with period.
Can you please do the same with other Javadoc comments?
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public Future<Void> close() { | ||
| return Future.succeededFuture(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We didn't talk about clearing the map on close, did we? Would it be necessary in your opinion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Personally I also think there's no need, but when I called the vertx.createSharedResource() in ReverseProxy#newCache, there's a closeFuture that I don't know how to deal with it.
Maybe you could check if the following would work? I think I should change to this version:
// ReverseProxy#newCache
public Cache newCache(CacheOptions options, Vertx vertx) {
if (options.getShared()) {
CloseFuture closeFuture = new CloseFuture();
return ((VertxInternal) vertx).createSharedResource("__vertx.shared.proxyCache", options.getName(), closeFuture, (cf_) -> {
Cache cache = new CacheImpl(options);
return cache;
});
}
return new CacheImpl(options);
}|
|
||
| /** | ||
| * Cache SPI. | ||
| */ | ||
| public interface Cache<K, V> extends Map<K, V> { | ||
| public interface Cache { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps add @Unstable here as we might want to evolve the SPI after the initial design
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public void fillResponseFromResource(ProxyResponse proxyResponse, Resource resource) { | ||
| proxyResponse.setStatusCode(200); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not using the status code of the resource?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this part of the code is moved from Resource#init where it uses 200 in the original code. In PR I don't want to change any logic so I left it in here, instead I made this change in #93
|
|
||
| public class ResourceParseTest { | ||
|
|
||
| public static boolean weakEquals(Resource r1, Resource r2) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why weakEquals? Which are the fields we don't want to compare?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A silly reason cause the full equals is rather too long to implement... I can add them back though
Closes #67
Updated the cache SPI and added serialization for the
Resourceclass.