pool: introduce generic Key parameter #16
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
howardjohn
force-pushed
the
pool/generic-key
branch
from
82f24bf to
1009384
Compare
seanmonstar
approved these changes
Dec 16, 2022
howardjohn
added a commit
to howardjohn/hyper-util
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 9, 2025
This PR introduces the ability to use a custom pool key with the legacy Client. hyperium#16 added generic support to `Pool` itself long ago, but it was never fully finished to allow a custom key in `Client`. To support backwards compatibility, a default PoolKey is assigned to the generic parameter which seems reasonably backwards compatible(?) When providing a custom pool key, the user is required to also pass a constructor that generates the pool key from the `http::request::Parts`. I had also considered making a user pass in the PoolKey as part of the `request()` call, but I think this is a worse experience generally and harder to be backwards compatible. If a user did want to do a per-request key they can always set an extension in `Parts` so this approach is equally flexible.
howardjohn
added a commit
to howardjohn/hyper-util
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 9, 2025
This PR introduces the ability to use a custom pool key with the legacy Client. hyperium#16 added generic support to `Pool` itself long ago, but it was never fully finished to allow a custom key in `Client`. To support backwards compatibility, a default PoolKey is assigned to the generic parameter which seems reasonably backwards compatible(?) When providing a custom pool key, the user is required to also pass a constructor that generates the pool key from the `http::request::Parts`. I had also considered making a user pass in the PoolKey as part of the `request()` call, but I think this is a worse experience generally and harder to be backwards compatible. If a user did want to do a per-request key they can always set an extension in `Parts` so this approach is equally flexible.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This PR makes pooling generic over the Key type, so the caller can decide how they wish to pool the client connections.
This PR builds on the work done by @EItanya (my colleague who is going OOO for a bit, so I took over) in #12.
Since that PR, support for the
runtimefeature was introduced, and a blanket impl was added for Key (see #12 (comment)).With this and #15 pulled locally, I was able to get a full custom pooling implementation in our project. edit: actually only can pool with
Reservation::Uniqueat this point since SendRequest isn'tCloneandinto_http2()is private. But those can be addressed I think.