Skip to content

Conversation

@acsmyth
Copy link

@acsmyth acsmyth commented Aug 3, 2025

Before this PR

After this PR

==COMMIT_MSG==
==COMMIT_MSG==

Possible downsides?

@acsmyth acsmyth marked this pull request as ready for review August 3, 2025 22:24
Copy link
Member

@pkoenig10 pkoenig10 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you please update the PR description to include the motivation for this change?

I'm not convinced that the cost of adding this configurability is worth the benefit.

If the default LIFO behavior of the Apache HTTP client is causing our clients to recreate connections, then it seems like these client simply aren't making enough requests where the connection creation matters.

We have existing server configuration options to control the Keep-Alive response header that will keep connection alive.

Comment on lines +95 to +97
/** Reuse policy for connection pooling. If absent, uses client implementation default. */
@JsonAlias("pool-reuse-policy")
Optional<PoolReusePolicy> poolReusePolicy();
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Connection pools are often managed by the underlying HTTP client implementation. It's not clear to me that all client implementations we will ever use will allow us to configure the connection pool in this way. Does the Apache client used by Dialogue support this? At they very least, I'd like to see functioning CJR and Dialogue PRs before merging this.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Oct 18, 2025

This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been touched in the last 14 days. If you'd like to keep it open, please leave a comment or add the 'long-lived' label, otherwise it'll be closed in 7 days.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Oct 18, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants