Replies: 1 comment 5 replies
-
| 
         Hi @bjmdev, @genedna and I discussed your idea and we think it would be great to introduce typed channels in dagrs. We plan to make channels as a trait so we can customize the input/output types of channels. The original untyped channels will be kept as special implementations of this new trait. If you have more ideas on this, feel free to let me know.  | 
  
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
                  
                    5 replies
                  
                
            
  
    Sign up for free
    to join this conversation on GitHub.
    Already have an account?
    Sign in to comment
  
        
    
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi there,
the current DAG and its channels are not typed, i.e. all nodes can be connected to each other regardless of what type their actions produce. This has the consequence, that actions must check on receiving an IP, that the content can be downcast to the expected type it needs for its logic. If that is not the case it needs to deal with it somehow (drop? report error? ...)
Maybe it makes sense to have typed channels. Nodes could be configured to have specific in-/out channels of specific type and one can only connect nodes with matching in-/out-type. Therefore, it is enforced by the dag, that nodes can receive only specific types via respective input channels and can send only specific types to respective output channels.
See https://github.com/teetime-framework/TeeTime as an example of what i mean.
Any thoughts on this?
Many thanks and best regards!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions