Alternative Binary Protocol idea for memcached.

[Dustin Sallings]

On Feb 21, 2008, at 16:56, Clint Webb wrote:

> I do have working code of a very similar protocol used for a  
> different purpose and was curious how easy it would be to integrate  
> it into memcached since Dustin mentioned that the protocol handling  
> was abstracted.

	I may not have sufficiently communicated just how slightly it was  
started.  I did the minimum required to wedge in the protocol I was  
implementing with a goal of not massively disrupting the codebase.

> So when I looked at the memcached code (binary branch) I realized  
> that the protocol abstraction could be improved a bit, so thats what  
> I've been looking at.  I wouldn't say that the performance  
> improvements would be massive, but I do think that it would be  
> something measurable at least.


	It certainly can.  My goal was to make it work.  I think it's mostly  
solidifying and a branch *from* there for experimenting would be good.

	Of course, we can't do too much without some kind of benchmarking  
tool in place to get a feel for whether we're making things better or  
worse, though.  That can, of course, happen later, but we've been  
guessing a lot in this tree already.

-- 
Dustin Sallings