Repository navigation
Isolated Processes 14: Add traits for process-backend implementations - #202
Merged
Merged
Conversation
marti4d
force-pushed
the
isolated_process/13-process-inspector-trait
branch
from
August 11, 2026 17:28
5dce91b to
76173b0
Compare
marti4d
force-pushed
the
isolated_process/14-process-backend-traits
branch
from
August 11, 2026 17:29
2f0b9f3 to
06e3ae5
Compare
Jake-Shadle
removed their request for review
August 12, 2026 08:22
marti4d
force-pushed
the
isolated_process/13-process-inspector-trait
branch
from
August 17, 2026 15:15
76173b0 to
9f861d5
Compare
marti4d
force-pushed
the
isolated_process/14-process-backend-traits
branch
from
August 17, 2026 15:15
06e3ae5 to
3358ffc
Compare
marti4d
force-pushed
the
isolated_process/13-process-inspector-trait
branch
from
August 20, 2026 13:40
9f861d5 to
3659c4b
Compare
Base automatically changed from
isolated_process/13-process-inspector-trait
to
main
August 20, 2026 13:47
marti4d
force-pushed
the
isolated_process/14-process-backend-traits
branch
from
August 20, 2026 14:37
3358ffc to
f5a3d4b
Compare
We are about to have a second set of implementations for the various process-backend types (the remote kind). We can, of course, implement the `ProcessInspector` traits for each of these, individually, but I think it makes good sense from an API perspective for process-backend to establish "this is my contract" rather than having two separate contracts for `local` and `remote` implementations. Of course, the nice part is that now `ProcessInspector` can be blanket implementated for all `Backend` types at once.
marti4d
force-pushed
the
isolated_process/14-process-backend-traits
branch
from
August 20, 2026 19:30
f5a3d4b to
efd58e0
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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
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.
We are about to have a second set of implementations for the various process-backend types (the remote kind).
We can, of course, implement the
ProcessInspectortraits for each of these, individually, but I think it makes good sense from an API perspective for process-backend to establish "this is my contract" rather than having two separate contracts forlocalandremoteimplementations.Of course, the nice part is that now
ProcessInspectorcan be blanket implementated for allBackendtypes at once.