feat!: add static/dynamic context #171
Merged
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
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
feat/client-extensions
branch
from
6e7324a
to
3c1e6bc
Compare
toddbaert
commented
Jan 10, 2023
skyerus
reviewed
Jan 11, 2023
beeme1mr
reviewed
Jan 11, 2023
toddbaert
requested review from
justinabrahms,
thomaspoignant,
agentgonzo,
AloisReitbauer,
benjiro,
dabeeeenster,
davejohnston,
InTheCloudDan,
jakedoublev,
josecolella,
kinyoklion,
markphelps,
moredip,
rgrassian-split,
skyerus,
tcarrio and
weyert
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
feat/client-extensions
branch
from
b31a2e9
to
f2b30ad
Compare
weyert
requested changes
Jan 19, 2023
moredip
reviewed
Jan 20, 2023
Co-authored-by: Pete Hodgson <github@thepete.net> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Co-authored-by: Pete Hodgson <github@thepete.net> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Co-authored-by: Pete Hodgson <github@thepete.net> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Co-authored-by: Jonathan Norris <jonathan@taplytics.com> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
toddbaert
force-pushed
the
feat/client-extensions
branch
from
03bb721
to
74dbeb6
Compare
kinyoklion
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2023
|
I think it would be helpful to include glossary entries for |
Kavindu-Dodan
approved these changes
Jul 13, 2023
Co-authored-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <Kavindu-Dodan@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Co-authored-by: Kavindu Dodanduwa <Kavindu-Dodan@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
Signed-off-by: Todd Baert <todd.baert@dynatrace.com>
beeme1mr
approved these changes
Jul 14, 2023
thomaspoignant
approved these changes
Jul 16, 2023
weyert
approved these changes
Jul 18, 2023
dabeeeenster
approved these changes
Jul 18, 2023
lukas-reining
approved these changes
Jul 18, 2023
fabriziodemaria
approved these changes
Jul 20, 2023
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 PR adds new points to support client use-cases. It does this primarily by defining and specifying a new static-context paradigm.
There's a few requirements that now "fork" on the condition that the implementation targets the dynamic context (server) or static context (client) modes. There's no functional changes specified for dynamic context implementations.
For more justification on the above, see the issue here, and the OFEPs linked therein.
Please note that there is some "number thrashing" with these changes. I tried to minimize it, but I think it's more important to have a coherent and sensible spec than to make sure to maintain the mapping between section numbers and content. I found that RFC2616 changed the content of their numbered sections revision to revision as well, so this isn't unprecedented.