This commit obviously denotes a re-license of all applicable parts of
the code base. Acknowledgement of this change was completed in #274 by
the majority of the current set of contributors. From here henceforth
all changes will be AGPL licensed and distributed. This is purely an
effort to maintain the same copy-left policy whilst closing the
(perceived) SaaS loophole the GPL allows for. It is merely for this
loophole: to avoid code hiding by any potential "network providers" who
are attempting to use the project to make a profit without either
compensating the authors or re-distributing their changes.
I thought quite a bit about this change and can't see a reason not to
close the SaaS loophole in our current license. We still are (hard)
copy-left and I plan to keep the code base this way for a couple
reasons:
- The code base produces income/profit through parent projects and is
demonstrably of high value.
- I believe firms should not get free lunch for the sake of
"contributions from their employees" or "usage as a service" which
I have found to be a dubious argument at best.
- If a firm who intends to profit from the code base wants to use it
they can propose a secondary commercial license to purchase with the
proceeds going to the project's authors under some form of well
defined contract.
- Many successful projects like Qt use this model; I see no reason it
can't work in this case until such a time as the authors feel it
should be loosened.
There has been detailed discussion in #103 on licensing alternatives.
The main point of this AGPL change is to protect the code base for the
time being from exploitation while it grows and as we move into the next
phase of development which will include extension into the multi-host
distributed software space.
Now that we're on our way to a (somewhat) serious beta release I think
it's about time to start de-noising the logging emissions. Since we're
trying out this approach of "stack layer oriented" log levels, I figured
this is a good time to move most of the "warnings" to what they should
be: cancellation monitoring status messages. The level is set to 16
which is just above our "runtime" level but just below the traditional
"info" level. I think this will be a decent approach since usually if
you're confused about why your `tractor` app is behaving unlike you
expect, it's 90% of the time going to be to do with cancellation or
error propagation. This this setup a user can specify the 'cancel' level
and see all the msgs pertaining to both actor and task-in-actor
cancellation mechanics.
Since we currently have no real "discovery protocol" between process
trees, the current naive approach is to check via a connect and drop to
see if a TCP server is bound to a particular address during root actor
startup. This was a historical decision and had no real grounding beyond
taking a simple approach to get something working when the project
was first started.
This is obviously problematic from an error handling perspective since
we need to be able to avoid such quick connect-and-drops from cancelling
an "arbiter"'s (registry actor's) channel-msg loop machinery (which
would propagate and cancel the actor).
For now we map this particular TCP error, which gets remapped by `trio`
as a `trio.BrokenResourceError` to our own internal `TransportClosed`
which is swallowed by channel message loop processing and indicates
a graceful teardown of the far end actor.
This begins the move to dropping support for `tractor.run()` which we
don't really need since the runtime is started (as it always has been)
from a new sub-task / nursery. Instead this introduces starting the
actor tree through a `open_root_actor()` async context manager which
we'll likely implicitly call (from the root) on the first use of an
actor nursery.
Drop `_actor._start_actor()` and factor its contents into this new api.
Make `run()` and `run_daemon()` use `open_root_actor()` until we decide
to remove them.
Relates to #168 and #177
Tyler Goodlet