Fix compile time issues with Router::boxed
#385
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This adds
BoxRouterLayer(created withBoxRouter::layer) which is used to box routes and removesRouter::boxed. Rust is apparently bad a checking trait bounds on functions (such asRouter::boxed) but deals just fine with trait bounds inimpls 🤷Curiously doing
.layer(BoxRouter::layer())is slow, but.layer(BoxRoute::<Body>::layer())is fast even thoughBoxRouter's first generic parameter defaults toBody🤔 So the docs specifically call out using.layer(BoxRoute::<Body>::layer()). I've tried making it required at compile time to always use a turbofish but haven't found a way.I still wanna do a bit more testing hence the draft. If things turn out to work well I think we should consider backporting this to 0.2 but deprecating
Router::boxedinstead of removing it.