From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D5351FF0B2 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:42:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7AA5E215BD; Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:42:36 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:42:32 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager v2 12/20] parallel fetcher: support a custom client factory From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Dominik Csapak" , "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260820145220.418032-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <20260820145220.418032-13-l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1787578923152 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.640 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: TN472LZP4V7HEB3ZBX7TMGP2MNZ3VIJD X-Message-ID-Hash: TN472LZP4V7HEB3ZBX7TMGP2MNZ3VIJD X-MailFrom: l.wagner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon Aug 24, 2026 at 2:33 PM CEST, Dominik Csapak wrote: > just a question: > > wouldn't it be more future-proof if we always give a > a PdmApplication to the parallel fetcher and extract > the client factory from there? > > no way to forget it that way... > > would probably mean that the commit comes later, > after we introduce the pdmapplication state in every > api call that uses a parallel fetcher.. Good point, would make sense I think. Thought about it while implementing, but wasn't sure if we'd ever need anything else than the ClientFactory in this context. Could make sense to make it a required parameter in the builder, and thus gently nudge users of ParallelFetcher to either get a PdmApplication handle from context::pdm_application, or, preferrably, via State<...> at the API handler level.