Add support for stateful clients #2341
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Let's first work on and merge #2389, where the definition of |
|
Hello there, and thanks for the work on supporting stateful clients. I see this PR is closed because the feature is supposed to be supported via the other mentioned issues. However, I'm not sure to understand how. Are those released in Flower 1.6? Is there any documentation on using stateful clients that I missed? Thanks again. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR introduces simple (but sufficient for most cases) support for stateful clients. All clients are stateful now (with state being a simple dataclass with nothing but the client-id). The state is transparently injected each time a client is instantiated and the result is retrieved before the client object is destroyed (recall in simulation clients are ephemeral).
This PR assumes #2331 is merged. it is also compatible with the ideas in #2303.
This PR replaces the contents of #2148 and #2160 so they should be closed/deleted