[#25] Creating one connection manager for all BackendEffect actions

[DK318]

Description

Problem

At this moment we are creating one connection manager per BackendEffect.
This seems ridiculous.

Solution

Added Member (State (Maybe Manager)) constraint in Sem to store only one
connection manager for all BackendEffect actions.

Related issue(s)

• Fixes Avoid creating many connection managers #25

✅ Checklist for your Pull Request

Related changes (conditional)

• Tests
  • If I added new functionality, I added tests covering it.
  • If I fixed a bug, I added a regression test to prevent the bug from
    silently reappearing again.

• Documentation
  • I checked whether I should update the docs and did so if necessary:
    • README
    • Haddock

• Public contracts
  • Any modifications of public contracts comply with the Evolution
    of Public Contracts policy.
  • I added an entry to the changelog if my changes are visible to the users
    and
  • provided a migration guide for breaking changes if possible

Stylistic guide (mandatory)

• My commits comply with the policy used in Serokell.
• My code complies with the style guide.

[MagicRB]

This is a bad idea IMO, having to create a tls connection manager for every backend is less then ideal. What we need is a way for each backend to store some data as a somehow

[dcastro]

having to create a tls connection manager for every backend is less then ideal

How so?

What we need is a way for each backend to store some data as a somehow

I didn't really understand what you meant here. What do you mean? And how is this related to connection managers?

[MagicRB]

My new pass backend doesnt need a tls connection mamager, so adding a Reader Tls... as a dependency for all backends is not ideal https://github.com/serokell/coffer/pull/54/files#diff-a0dd0bee522a338924cfebf12a6c79b6cb8a9bfdd093e249d370306060b45480R32

[MagicRB]

We're once again making the frontend take responsibility for things which should not be its responsibility, also such state will make it hard for #56 to work.

[dcastro]

@MagicRB Oh I see, I hadn't considered that some backends might not need a connection manager at all.

Yup, that makes sense. Would you please open a PR that solves the issue in #16?

[MagicRB]

I think I've come up with a way to do this, I'll get it done today