-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
Add high-level boundary management interface #2177
base: dev-next
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add high-level boundary management interface #2177
Conversation
0d7c3e6
to
b611205
Compare
Still working on some minor improvements and bug fixes. I think this change requires better logging for closing outbound, but not all outbound implementations have a close method, which makes it a bit messy, so maybe we'll have to do the same thing we do on inbound to unify the outbound close interface and put the close log there. |
See examples in #2180! |
b611205
to
c945858
Compare
Revised few boundary mutex read lock places, and improved the structure of the Router interface and implementation. |
c945858
to
f25cb7c
Compare
I rewrote the router's boundary management part to implement dynamic management from a high-level box interface. This also includes a number of changes I made in the process of rewriting some messy parts, such as the Outbound tree bottom-top starter.
f25cb7c
to
99840ba
Compare
ac6c4b0
to
6740910
Compare
81dc9e7
to
d6597fa
Compare
58913be
to
b148629
Compare
fcc0582
to
19eec69
Compare
I rewrote the router's boundary management part to implement dynamic management from a high-level box interface. This also includes a number of changes I made in the process of rewriting some messy parts, such as the Outbound tree bottom-top starter.
What I reallly need is someone how is experianced in this project (like @nekohasekai) to check my changes and verify everything good and I didn't forget anything. I'm planning to run my project on it, so wait for more improvements in the future =)