An alternative to Tugela cache
albertito at gmail.com
Sun Sep 2 22:32:15 UTC 2007
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:29:16PM -0700, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2007, at 7:51, Alberto Bertogli wrote:
> >> Any chance for a perl binding?
> > I don't think I'll be writing one anytime soon, sorry. I take patches,
> > though =)
> This would probably be less of an issue (and more topical) if you used existing protocols. We've
> got an ascii protocol for which there are many existing clients, and a high-performance binary
> protocol for which I expect there to be many clients eventually.
> Making a new protocol for a similar concept just makes adoption more difficult. As I understand
> it, this was one of the compelling features of Tugela.
I don't know about Tugela (I actually didn't know about it until after I
wrote nmdb), but I don't think the protocol is much of an issue here.
The C library is quite simple, and writing bindings to it (instead of
re-writing it in a different language) should be close to trivial to
anyone familiar with the language in question (be it Perl, PHP,
Having written bindings for languages I'm comfortable with (Python) and
for languages I am not (the rest), I'm not really worried about that.
About the protocol reuse, I don't find the text-oriented protocol really
attractive, and a simple binary protocol was easier for me to write and
debug, so I did.
Memcached client compatibility was never on my plans, as originally only
TIPC was supported (after a while, it became trivial to add other
transport protocols, so the rest was implemented), and that would imply
I had to follow memcached protocols and worry about compatibility, and
I'm not really interested in any of that.
More information about the memcached