On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:26 PM Zach Lym <[email protected]> wrote:
> I might say: "As of March 2021, three-party handoff and capability >>>> equality -- two advanced-but-important features of CapTP -- are not yet >>>> supported by Cap'n Proto." >>>> >>> >>> That sounds a bit too massaged. I think it should flatly state that the >>> *reference* implementation doesn't implement the full standard. >>> >> >> Fair enough. >> >> Maybe: "As of March 2021, Cap'n Proto's reference implementation does not >> support all of the features that have been specified in its own protocol. >> In particular, three-party handoff and capability equality -- identified in >> the spec as level 3 and level 4, respectively -- are not yet supported." >> > > I agree with you that an explanation of the protocols should precede this > statement. But if you are self conscious about Cap'n Proto not supporting > levels 3 & 4 ... it *is* weird and it makes Cap'n Proto feel half baked > 😟. > Eh? No, none of this bothers me in that way. I just thought it was weird to refer to "level 2" without any explanation of what that means, so I was trying to come up with ways to explain. If you want to just say "Eight years after introduction, Cap'n Proto's reference implementation still doesn't implement all of the protocol as specified." that's fine with me. I'm not saying this because I want to be mean, I love Cap'n Proto and want > to see it succeed! But the reference implementation being in C++ means > it's not suitable for medium-to-high assurance projects, it lacks features > that really set it apart from other frameworks (zero-copy IPC, advanced > OCap functionality, and built in encryption), and it's not available in as > many languages as competitors. I *really* don't like giving this type of > feedback, but hopefully it's constructive. > Hmm, it seems like you're worried I'd find something hurtful here, but I don't, and I'm not even sure what it is that would be hurtful. I built Cap'n Proto to suit my needs. When there's something missing that I need, I add it. If there are things missing that other people need, I invite them to add it. But if they decide to use something else instead, that doesn't bother me; I want them to use whatever works for them. I have no particular need or desire for Cap'n Proto to be widely adopted, I only need it to get the job done in my other projects. I'm way more interested in adoption of Cloudflare Workers than Cap'n Proto -- the former puts money in my pocket, the latter does not. If you think it'd be useful to quote me on that to explain the state of the project, feel free. :) -Kenton > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cap'n Proto" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/capnproto/CAJouXQnL6hvHGN%3DXtKxQcWnLjf%2BFE-RGMPtep%2BFY9A%3Dghpgg8A%40mail.gmail.com.
