spetz commented on code in PR #1838:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iggy/pull/1838#discussion_r2132131963
##########
core/sdk/src/clients/producer_builder.rs:
##########
@@ -15,27 +15,234 @@
// specific language governing permissions and limitations
// under the License.
-use super::MAX_BATCH_SIZE;
+use super::MAX_BATCH_LENGTH;
+use crate::clients::producer_config::{BackgroundConfig, BackpressureMode,
SyncConfig};
+use crate::clients::producer_error_callback::ErrorCallback;
+use crate::clients::producer_error_callback::LogErrorCallback;
+use crate::clients::producer_sharding::{BalancedSharding, Sharding};
use crate::prelude::IggyProducer;
use iggy_binary_protocol::Client;
use iggy_common::locking::IggySharedMut;
use iggy_common::{
- EncryptorKind, Identifier, IggyDuration, IggyExpiry, MaxTopicSize,
Partitioner, Partitioning,
+ EncryptorKind, Identifier, IggyByteSize, IggyDuration, IggyExpiry,
MaxTopicSize, Partitioner,
+ Partitioning,
};
use std::sync::Arc;
-#[derive(Debug)]
+pub struct BackgroundBuilder {
Review Comment:
I'm wondering if we should call this one `Background`, given that the
current one is named `Sync`. Maybe we could call this one `Async`? Then, we
would have both, `sync` and `async` builder methods. At the same time, `sync`
sounds like we were not using async and futures at all, and this would be a
blocking client (which we would like to at some point in the future). I'm fine
with the current naming convention, just thinking if we could make it even
better :D
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
