Extensible command syntax
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
>> 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
> Dustin Sallings
More information about the memcached