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

[WIP] Feature: TCPFactory/TCPTransport instead of dmsg #503

Conversation

ayuryshev
Copy link
Collaborator

It's WIP.
Just compiled and passes regular tests.

Closes: #501

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ type Node struct {
Logger *logging.Logger

tm *transport.Manager
messenger *dmsg.Client
messenger transport.Factory
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The setup node is supposed to use dmsg exclusively and directly. The communication between the visor and the setup node should not use TCP transport.

}
case "tcp-transport":
r.Logger.Info("Skipping setup for tcp-transport")
_, err := r.tm.CreateSetupTransport(context.Background(), raddr.PubKey, "tcp-transport")

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

dmsg is to be used with SetupNode always.

@evanlinjin
Copy link

Just a thought, let's split this PR into two.

  • PR1: Implement the ability to choose between transport types for estabilishing data transports.
  • PR2: Testing stuff.

Let's make this PR be PR1 so we can have it merged faster.

@evanlinjin evanlinjin closed this Sep 4, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants