follow std http package Handler interface about fx HOT 11 CLOSED

This may sound like a nuanced answer, but "when in Rome..." In other words, having a library that deviates from std lib conventions can hurt its chances of adoption. I am a big fan of passing the context explicitly, especially when designing business service APIs, because it encourages developers to pass it around and make use of it (e.g. respect cancellation signals). But given that std lib chose a different approach for http.Request, I would make an exception and stick with the std lib API. @yutongp's dual source of truth argument makes a lot of sense.

On a separate note, I thought Fx would be integrated with yarpc and this whole question would become a moot point, since people won't be writing http handlers explicitly, but rather yarpc handlers that do pass context as argument.

from fx.

BTW I do agree context should be the first param in all business logic layers passed HTTP layer. So the user define HTTP handler probably looks like:

func (h Handler) ServeHTTP(w ResponseWriter, r *Request) {
  ctx := r.Context() 
  businessReq := toBusinessModel(r)
  businessResp := handleBusiness(ctx , businessReq)
  ....
}

from fx.

I can put out a diff for this during weekend. It is more about what direction we would like to go. Any thought?

from fx.

We discussed this at length, and were encouraged by the observability team to make it an explicit parameter.

cc @anuptalwalkar @yurishkuro

from fx.

I feel like yarpc doesn't have all the features for a pure Go HTTP service (why pure HTTP service? that could be another discussion) for now. Just leak of supporting url-encoded data and user unable to set http response code is almost a No for a lot of use cases. So for now having a http package with all the tool chains we need make sense I think.

from fx.

@yutongp for yarpc http is just a protocol. We have a separate uhttp module, which has nothing to do with yarpc whatsoever.

from fx.

I think @yutongp caught us in the transition state: we just removed a custom fx.context and haven't fully moved to use the standard one yet.

from fx.

@alsamylkin I like you guys changed fx to use std context. When I saw that commit, I said 'YES!' to myself. I think std context is definitely the direction to go. appengine used to have custom context and they moved away.

from fx.

from fx.

@sectioneight sure, no worries, no rush :D

from fx.

#239

from fx.