Two binary protocol questions (draft, stats)

dormando dormando at
Thu Apr 3 18:51:35 UTC 2008


- When I updated t/binary.t I only used the binary v2 document. Somehow 
I missed a number of inconsistencies (I found a few!) that Todd has now 
pointed out. There're more.

We've adjusted the implementation to match the draft for the RES magic 
byte, but at this point do we update the rest of the draft to match the 
implementation, or the server to match the draft? This would start with 
Todd's patches, then finishing up with everything else.

Some basics, like the remaining bytes disagree with the draft. Obviously 
it's less work to just update the draft, but are we missing 
features/intentions? I haven't had time to look, hoping Dustin knows :)

- As far as completing the commands for the binary protocol goes, it 
looks like we're just lacking the stats commands.

I'd like to open the floor to ideas. I know trond's going to submit one 
later on, but I'm curious if anyone's really thought about this yet.

The issue with the stats commands is about how we will agree to format 
the responses in binary mode vs text mode. The simplest obvious method 
is to just encapsulate the text responses in a format similar to a get 

Otherwise we'll have to build a (hopefully very simple!) alternative, 
then the actual implementation of the stats commands will need to change 
to account for whom they're answering.

If we make the format too complicated, we could end up with more client 
code to *decode* the stats commands than for the rest of them, so please 
keep that in mind :)


More information about the memcached mailing list