Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
xds: define base interfaces for filter factories #9391
xds: define base interfaces for filter factories #9391
Changes from all commits
20a864f
b2aee3e
e249c87
48905de
217512e
1fc3c60
6edc214
144a5f1
c8e424c
b3a65bc
a011cfc
338865e
7f2cf51
b0e7ee5
ffb764a
29d3448
afff1d5
7406cef
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given that folks are going to be starting to move to v3 in early 2020, do we want to do a lot of work to make this supported in v2?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We need some bridge to associate a protobuf type with a factory. We probably could invert this, and just use
type
to instantiate a proto. Either way works, I'm aiming for minimal disruption in this PR.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you think about getting #8933 landed? In this world, all extensions are typed..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that would be wonderful. I was going to special case empty config but would be better without that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One thing we could do, and it doesn't have to be this PR, is move away from having each individual filter return empty protos. Instead, they could either return a type name or descriptor, and we could have more general machinery for assembling the empty proto. Might not be a big win, but just thought I'd throw it out there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree. It also helps with the registration initialization fiasco, since protobuf initializer may run after factory initializers.