Extensible command syntax

Chris Goffinet goffinet at yahoo-inc.com
Tue Nov 6 20:37:49 UTC 2007

Didn't Paul say he had some parts of it written?


On Nov 6, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Dustin Sallings wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2007, at 10:36 , Tomash Brechko wrote:
>> I think this route would lead to extensibility problems later.
>> Suppose we decide to add yet another field, "cas2".  Existing  
>> commands
>> aren't aware of it, so we have to introduce yet another command, say
>> "cas2", hence the syntax would be
> 	I think the long-term goal is is to reduce the cost of parsing by  
> means of a binary protocol.  Even there, the idea of adding  
> arbitrary extensibility was shot down as unnecessary overhead.
> 	In practice, adding commands in binary protocol implementations of  
> both clients and servers has not been difficult enough to justify  
> any kind of extensibility within commands in general.
> 	Most of what you described sounds like HTTP (ranges, arbitrary  
> headers, pre-data checks, etc...).  There has been talk of adding an  
> HTTP front-end to memcached.  I don't think anyone is terribly  
> opposed to the idea if it's clean, but nobody seems to want to write  
> it.
> -- 
> Dustin Sallings

More information about the memcached mailing list