Open rstoyanchev opened 3 years ago
Drafted a diagram of a possible design of the implementation
1) Decode given metadata to find encoded route via MetadataDecoder
(note, a requester side should use a MetadataEncoder
to encode route in the payload metadata
2) Find a Handler Function based on string route in the Router
3) Handle found function depends on the interaction type
Playing devil's advocate - Isn't this the point of the framework code above rsocket? Should this be part of the base library?
I know it's awkward if rsocket-rpc-java and spring-messaging are peers that are unaware of the other, but seems like something would need to configure how to decide where to delegate calls to. That logic seems likely to be similar to any framework like spring or rsocket-rpc.
No strong opinion here against, just probing.
Actually, this logic is in rsocket-rpc as of now, but, after a few discussions, @bsideup and I ended up that rsocket-router logic should sit in a different place than rpc. Thus it is either should be rsocket-router-java
or rsocket-java
with submodule rsocket-router
Makes sense. So I'd change my argument to be that it shouldn't be that routing has pride of place in rsocket-java. But a module allowing frameworks to coexist, has an attraction.
RSocketConnector
andRSocketServer
can be configured with aSocketAcceptor
that handles all requests. A framework can build on this low level mechanism and decide how to route requests internally. However there is no easy way to have multiple frameworks, e.g. rsocket-rpc-java and spring-messaging, side by side in the same application.Given the existence of the Routing Metadata Extension, RSocket Java could provide a mechanism to delegate requests to one of multiple
RSocket
handlers depending on the route. This could be as simple as a route prefix that helps to decide whichRSocket
should handle the request.