-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 934
ComponentProvider v2 #2889
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ComponentProvider v2 #2889
Conversation
80d2230
to
e01a7c3
Compare
Binary Size ReportAffected SDKs
Test Logs |
This reverts commit 9725015.
c141136
to
f1d4a49
Compare
f1d4a49
to
7533327
Compare
I wonder if there's an approach in between the two--what if you made the base class the memory-only version and then made the IndexedDB configuration extend that? That way all the common stuff could stay common but the memory-only case wouldn't pay the penalty of the extra abstract class? |
Updated with your suggestion. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
So... obviously the component provider design broke the other PR I had in flight. In #2879, I rely on the ability to provide a custom persistence implementation in the SpecTest that can inject failures. With the ComponentProvider as implemented, I would have to build up all components from scratch. It would be nice if I only needed to change the persistence layer.
I pushed three versions:
I personally prefer the last option (the diff of this PR).