Hackathon / Multidimensional keys / Wildcard deletes
fonz at siol.net
Sun Jul 8 18:07:39 UTC 2007
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 08:48 -0700, ydnar wrote:
> That’s definitely not what I was thinking. Rather than wrap the
> current protocol, or introduce an XML parser, just map Memcached
> commands to HTTP 1.1 equivalents, and extend (ala WebDAV) for
> commands with no counterpart:
> Metadata about a cached item can be encoded using HTTP headers.
Ok, now I see what you mean. Thanks :)
>In general, I disagree -- I don't like having multiple protocol
>interfaces to one thing like memcached -- all it means is various
>clients will only implement one of X possible protocol formats, all
>with different feature sets, creating a massive mess on the client side
>of memcached, something that isn't often discussed here.
Additionally, there could be compatibility problems. Upgrading server
will neccessary require the upgrade of client libraries.
>I think there is a more interesting thought that this is leading to --
>that memcached should be more modular. In the last couple weeks people
>have brought up having multiple backend storage methods. Perhaps we
>should look at making a *compile* time selection system for both a
>frontend command parser and a backend storage system?
Good idea. But does that have to be a compile time decision? What about
people that use binaries? Wouldn't loadable modules be better design
More information about the memcached