Protocol questions
Aaron Stone
aaron at serendipity.cx
Fri Feb 29 03:56:50 UTC 2008
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 14:36 +0100, Roy Lyseng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question around the protocol support in memcached:
>
> Is there any (good) reason for registering one port per protocol in
> memcached? We have the text protocol, the binary protocol, and yet other
> protocols are in the coming. Would it be better to listen on a single
> port per IP protocol (TCP or UDP) and dispatch subprotocol requests
> internally? We could e.g. let the first byte in a packet determine the
> subprotocol (text protocol reserves all lower-case ASCII letters...) and
> then dispatch the socket to the proper subprotocol handler.
>
> I am afraid of the myriad of options that will be needed to configure a
> memcached server. It would be great if we only need one option per IP
> protocol. Besides, it will make it easier for us if we decide to
> register official IANA ports for memcached.
>
> Roy
+1 for keeping things on the same port because we have a magic byte to
differentiate protocols and to know when our server doesn't understand
the client's version, too!
+1/2 on the IANA point. I think that the most important issue is that we
don't appear to be setting ourselves up to request one port number per
protocol _version_. The text and binary protocols aren't so much
different versions as they are different protocols entirely.
Aaron
More information about the memcached
mailing list