RFC - Migrate to asynchronous code using Hyper

[Kixiron]

Rendered

[pietroalbini]

I'm generally in favor of migrating, and I'd go with the first migration option (having a Hyper route forwarding requests to Iron). I'd also love see in the RFC whether we want to first migrate faster, slower, less requested or more requested routes first.

[Nemo157]

Assuming that turning a hyper request into an iron request is easy enough, this sounds like a good way to go.

[Kixiron]

Waiting on review from the following members

• @pietroalbini
• @jyn514
• @Nemo157
• @GuillaumeGomez
• @Kixiron

[jyn514]

Please update the RFC to address the comments, including the comments you marked as resolved.

[Nemo157]

One other thought I just had is that it might be good to avoid having the actual site code rely directly on hyper by using something like http-service (though there are ecosystem issues that make me hesitant to directly recommend http-service). If there are performance issues with hyper then that decoupling would make moving to another service host easier.

[Kixiron]

I think pretty much anything we use will make for a slightly painful experience because most are fairly heavily opinionated and very different. Additionally, hyper has a pretty good relationship with the tower webstack, so if need be transferring to that probably wouldn't be too bad

[Nemo157]

That was meant to be the point of http-service, it’s a (relatively) unopinionated Interface between an opinionated web framework and the underlying server; so that you can swap web servers while using the same framework (or proposed lack of framework) on top.