feat(libp2p): deprecate mplex #3689
Conversation
tcoratger
force-pushed
the
deprecate_mplex
branch
from
254d6c3 to
6f87618
Compare
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Could you please resolve them @tcoratger? 🙏 |
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Could you please resolve them @tcoratger? 🙏 |
| @@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ async-std = { version = "1.12", features = ["attributes"] } | |||
| async-trait = "0.1" | |||
| env_logger = "0.10" | |||
| futures = "0.3.28" | |||
| libp2p = { path = "../../libp2p", features = ["async-std", "dns", "kad", "mplex", "noise", "tcp", "websocket", "yamux"] } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You need to undo this line to make the IPFS integration test work again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@thomaseizinger Done, maybe for future PR: you said in the comments above that you didn't want to use deprecated modules like this in the examples. In this context, shouldn't mplex be replaced by yamux here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes correct. In this case, we still use development_transport for this example. I'd like to change how this function is being used but we still need to hash out a design. See #3657.
The option here would either be to use inline development_transport into the example or use the deprecated feature here. To keep the scope of the PR small, I'd say using it here is fine enough. We don't explicitly show the use of mplex in here so I don't think it is that bad. With the next breaking change, we will remove mplex from the development_transport and the world will be better :)
|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Could you please resolve them @tcoratger? 🙏 |
mergify
bot
dismissed
thomaseizinger’s stale review
Approvals have been dismissed because the PR was updated after the send-it label was applied.
Description
mplexmodule (no flow control and no streams limit) is deprecated to encourageyamuxusage.Resolves #3677.
Change checklist