Skip to content

deps: replace async-std with futures-lite #18

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 6, 2021

Conversation

raggi
Copy link
Contributor

@raggi raggi commented Apr 8, 2021

It may be useful to be able to use this in more ecosystems without
taking the whole async-std dependency. The async-std dependency was
mostly through re-exports that can instead be taken directly on the
futures crate.

@yoshuawuyts
Copy link
Member

Instead of using the futures crate directly, compilation could be faster by using futures-io and futures-core] instead. If you could use those crates instead we can merge this PR!

@raggi
Copy link
Contributor Author

raggi commented Apr 8, 2021

Will do, I was originally going to use futures-lite but it's always hard to know at the moment which stacks are preferable where! :-)

@raggi raggi changed the title deps: replace async-std with futures deps: replace async-std with futures-lite Apr 12, 2021
@raggi
Copy link
Contributor Author

raggi commented Apr 12, 2021

I moved it over to futures-lite. PTAL, and thank you!

It may be useful to be able to use this in more ecosystems without
taking the whole async-std dependency. The async-std dependency was
mostly through re-exports that can instead be taken directly on the
futures crate.
@jbg
Copy link

jbg commented Sep 6, 2021

Are there any outstanding issues before this can be merged? Would love to use this crate for a project but definitely don't want to pull in async-std.

@yoshuawuyts yoshuawuyts merged commit 52e825a into http-rs:main Sep 6, 2021
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