Extensible command syntax
dustin at spy.net
Tue Nov 6 23:46:03 UTC 2007
On Nov 6, 2007, at 15:29 , dormando wrote:
> How much work do you think it'd be to make the protocol more
> pluggable? I don't feel comfortable making a lot of these ideas part
> of the primary distribution. Given large install folks might try it
> then realize it is in fact incredibly slow.
There was talk about doing such things, but the code doesn't have
very clean separation in that respect. The progress I made was very
slight. I was hoping to avoid having much impact on the text protocol
to add the binary.
> But people want to try, and we could make it easier for them to
> maintain out of tree plugins. Brian's also been hinting at pluggable
> backend support (which looks fairly easy, lacking time).
It does sound like a decent goal. Of course, from where I stand, I'd
rather get the two in and separate them first (having already done the
Besides, having two distinct protocols to work with would help guide
one through the separation while the tests validate nothing broke
along the way.
> Sorry for derailing the original topic, but this appears to be the
> problem worth discussing :) I agree with what Dustin/etc saying in
> that extending the binary protocol isn't a big deal. Making the
> commands all "meta" would overload the fact that the binary protocol
> is already very meta, and small commands just seem to be a better
> idea for maintenance.
And the idea of combining commands comes with some high costs. The
combinations add up fast.
More information about the memcached