Protocol questions

Dustin Sallings dustin at
Sat Mar 1 20:01:16 UTC 2008

On Mar 1, 2008, at 11:49, Aaron Stone wrote:

> Hah, duh. Thanks. Maybe then one of my earlier points, that it's ok to
> have separate ports for binary and text (in fact, perhaps requires),  
> but
> make it clear that it's because they're pretty much different  
> protocols,
> with different rules on how to figure out capabilities.

	People have been asking for reasons, and as the protocols were  
defined, the only reason has been ``because I don't want to do it.''

	What's happening here is the protocols are changing shape so that  
that's no longer true.

	Maybe we should stop calling it ``the binary protocol'' and start  
calling it ``perl 6.''  :)

	I know we want to get it absolutely perfect, but it's kind of got  
this ``never going to happen'' vibe now.  I pushed out my code for the  
first version on my daughter's 12th birthday last July.  If she turns  
13 without this product having shipped, what will she think of me?

	That said, we could reserve an opaque value to mean ``untagged'' and  
have it be a sort of out-of-band response a la IMAP.  As long as it's  
ignorable, it shouldn't be a huge problem.

Dustin Sallings

More information about the memcached mailing list