Initial implementation #1
Conversation
a0db8c4 to
2733044
Compare
4c284df to
9bdf24d
Compare
fbb91b0 to
659557b
Compare
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
96f9be3 to
9711999
Compare
fa76eac to
706b354
Compare
| ... | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class LazyValueT(Protocol): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But I thought we were removing sync form? At which point is there value here?
| """Request or response data.""" | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class Serializer(Protocol): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not incorrect, it's just too limiting and not common for these use cases. I think we should revisit this since it makes sense for serializer to be a base class one extends instead of duck-typed.
| ... | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class LazyValueT(Protocol): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I think my main problem was that this didn't make sense as a protocol
| ) | ||
| return defn | ||
|
|
||
| def _validation_errors(self) -> list[str]: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we get a general decision on operation-less Nexus service contracts and whether we generally believe they are valid? A dataclass with no fields may be valid, but a service with no calls may not be.
| from nexusrpc.handler._operation_handler import OperationHandler | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def get_service_definition( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Concern about the name is different than concern about the placement. I think there's not a need to clutter the top-level API with a top-level function here. Whether we call this from_class or get_from_class or whatever I think is a secondary question (I don't see a from_whatever to be a constructor, but can be documented away).
src/nexusrpc/handler/_common.py
Outdated
|
|
||
|
|
||
| @dataclass(frozen=True) | ||
| class OperationContext: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's also a signal of intent as well (i.e. "this is always used as a base class")
| ... | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| class BaseServiceCollectionHandler(AbstractHandler): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 Would definitely like to reduce class/abstraction count if we can
| ) | ||
| self.service_handlers[sh.service.name] = sh | ||
|
|
||
| async def start_operation( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 I trust the removal of the unused syncio stuff is being tracked
| def service_handler(cls: Type[ServiceHandlerT]) -> Type[ServiceHandlerT]: ... | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| # TODO(preview): allow service to be provided as positional argument? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess what I mean is why is service before * in the impl but after the * here?
| self.headers = headers | ||
| self.stream = stream | ||
|
|
||
| def consume(self, as_type: Optional[Type[Any]] = None) -> Any: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A thought while we're here - arguably a sync implementation should allow async operations and provide an event loop to run them on via run_coroutine_threadsafe similar to how an executor is provided to go from async to sync.
f1c5988 to
0673817
Compare
Nexus Python SDK initial content.
For an overview of the user experience of implementing and calling Nexus handlers, see the Temporal sample, and tests in this PR.