Skip to content
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

migration from httpi to faraday #992

Open
pcai opened this issue Mar 12, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

migration from httpi to faraday #992

pcai opened this issue Mar 12, 2023 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@pcai
Copy link
Member

pcai commented Mar 12, 2023

Feature request

httpi is now deprecated in favor of https://github.com/lostisland/faraday, so we should plan a migration to it for savon

Motivation for this feature:

httpi is no longer actively maintained, and continuing to do so would duplicate a lot of existing work already done in the ruby ecosystem.

in addition, there are many missing features in httpi that would require fairly large rewrites (for example -- keepalive support, threadsafety / global state issues come to mind). this effort is better spent migrating savon to faraday which already supports these features.

Would this introduce a breaking change?

yes, this will likely require a major version bump as the public interface for savon, and some important behaviors, might change.

Are you willing to work on this yourself?

yes

@pcai
Copy link
Member Author

pcai commented Mar 27, 2023

I took a look at this recently and it seems to require some larger refactoring changes. Basically, the way the builder pattern is applied needs to change a bit, because faraday distinguishes between "requests" and "connections" much more strongly due to concepts like http keepalive

@pcai pcai self-assigned this Mar 27, 2023
@nowakoo
Copy link

nowakoo commented Apr 27, 2023

@pcai fingers crossed! Do you know approximately when the next version will be released?

@pcai
Copy link
Member Author

pcai commented Apr 28, 2023

Sorry no eta at the moment, I am still poking at this occasionally and there seem to be a bunch of decisions around larger/cleaner refactoring vs minimizing changes. Will update when i make more progress

@bmbliss
Copy link

bmbliss commented Dec 11, 2023

any update on this?

@LukeIGS LukeIGS mentioned this issue Jan 4, 2024
@LukeIGS
Copy link

LukeIGS commented Jan 8, 2024

@bmbliss #998

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants