Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add builder customizer for DefaultJedisClientConfig.Builder #3007

Open
bshain-vtinfo opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Add builder customizer for DefaultJedisClientConfig.Builder #3007

bshain-vtinfo opened this issue Sep 26, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
type: enhancement A general enhancement

Comments

@bshain-vtinfo
Copy link

I would like to request the addition of a means to set / configure the JedisClientConfig.clientSetInfoConfig property.

As of right now, there is not a clear path to set clientSetInfoConfig on the JedisClientConfig instance within the JedisConnectionFactory. This property is already present on currently released Jedis artifacts Jedis v5.1.5 Example.

The use case for this request is that in some instances, it would be useful to set this property to disabled, (ClientSetInfoConfig.DISABLED) instead of the ClientSetInfoConfig.DEFAULT value.

@spring-projects-issues spring-projects-issues added the status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged label Sep 26, 2024
@mp911de mp911de changed the title Add Support to Jedis for JedisClientConfig.clientSetInfoConfig property Add builder customizer for DefaultJedisClientConfig.Builder Sep 27, 2024
@mp911de mp911de added type: enhancement A general enhancement and removed status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged labels Sep 27, 2024
@mp911de
Copy link
Member

mp911de commented Sep 27, 2024

Looking at the configuration, we're creating JedisClientConfig in several places so it would be best to introduce a customizer for DefaultJedisClientConfig.Builder that allows you to control additional properties on the client config.

@bshain-vtinfo
Copy link
Author

Thanks!
Agree your suggested solution sounds like a better fit for this scenario & would help with future-proofing.

This seems like it could also potentially address issue 2972 as well. (Or at least as a temporary measure until new config options are explicitly added)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: enhancement A general enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants