Several improvements around Bytesable
and Message
.
#601
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
These commits do some likely uncontroversial tidying, and then the somewhat controversial removal of the
Bundle
type which communicates a preference for usingbincode
onMessage
. Although we started to generalize the allowed serialization strategies,Bundle
has been in the public interface forParallelizationContract
, and generally there needs to be some structure to allow the various helpers to pull out timestamps, etc. This shift does not remove flexibility that actually existed, as far as I can tell.The intended direction is to replace the
Bytesable
implementation forMessage
, which in this PR looks like sowith one for which we have only
C: Bytesable
. This allows the container to specify its strategy for serialization. There are a few ways to do this, and I haven't figured out which one is best or worst or .. whatever. That part being tbd, I thought I'd put this up for review in the meantime.