Add RPC protocol to Peer #394
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Currently, observability interceptors must parse the `Content-Type` header to determine which RPC protocol is in use. This isn't awful, but it's so easy for `connect-go` to expose directly that we might as well. I chose to use our own strings rather than repurposing OpenTelemetry's semantic conventions here. The OTel strings are less nice in this context, and the packages are all unstable and subject to change. @joshcarp, LMK if this seems like a bad tradeoff to you.
|
So I actually already derived this on my own, so this is a nice addition I can use. Would it make sense to move it to it's own type/enum? Something like: type Protocol string
const (
ProtocolConnect = Protocol("connect")
...
)or whatever? Might make it easier to use for folks trying to consume this (like me). |
I'd rather not make a separate type, but I'm happy to do some enum-named constants! From this codebase's perspective, I don't think named types are worth the API surface, since they don't stop us from mistakenly passing around string literals. I can see the utility of having them in code consuming these strings, but I'll leave that up to the consumer. |
|
I think a named constant would at least be useful. :) |
Export constants for the three currently-supported protocols. This commit also simplifies the implementation a bit: there's no need to make the protocol name part of the internal `protocol` interface quite yet.
akshayjshah
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2023
Currently, observability interceptors must parse the `Content-Type` header to determine which RPC protocol is in use. This isn't awful, but it's so easy for `connect-go` to expose directly that we might as well. I chose to use our own strings rather than repurposing OpenTelemetry's semantic conventions here. The OTel strings are less nice in this context, and the packages are all unstable and subject to change. @joshcarp, LMK if this seems like a bad tradeoff to you.
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.
Currently, observability interceptors must parse the
Content-Typeheader to determine which RPC protocol is in use. This isn't awful, but
it's so easy for
connect-goto expose directly that we might as well.I chose to use our own strings rather than repurposing OpenTelemetry's
semantic conventions here. The OTel strings are less nice in this
context, and the packages are all unstable and subject to change.
@joshcarp, LMK if this seems like a bad tradeoff to you.