-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 146
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
Adding in note about how to handle Futures / Streams #34
Conversation
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.
This looks great, thanks @Pauan! Would you also like to add a note to the design section below about how we decided we want to build higher-level APIs on top of mid-level APIs, and the "onion layer approach" where we make sure every layer is reusable? Happy if that is in this PR or in a follow up, so if you want to do a follow up, feel free to just merge this PR now and then open a new one.
Thanks again!
Oh also: since |
Oh also: we should mention that the |
Also also: should the top-level I'm leaning towards "yes" for convenience, but I'm also interested in what others think. |
The I don't have strong opinions one way or the other, but I do like segregating by types, and it also paves the way to other types (like
That sounds good to me. |
I added a note about high-level and mid-level APIs. I think we need to have consensus on what the future/stream cargo feature should be called before I make a note about it. |
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.
Thanks!
See #27