Hi Jiaming, Thanks for driving the discussion about the aligment between CppClient and JaveClient. IMO, It is hard to define a mechanism to guarantee the aligment at present. If it's difficult to guarantee alignment, then it's necessary to ensure that CppClient is aligned with a certain version. Otherwise, the features of CppClient are uncertain for release version. BTW, could you provide the supported features of current CppClient?
Regards, Nicholas Jiang On 2025/10/30 07:52:02 Jiaming Xie wrote: > Hi Celeborn Community, > > I've been working on CppClient's code for about a year. Currently the > readClient's code is functional, and the writerClient's code is under > development. > > But as the JavaClient has plenty of features, it is hard to implement > all of them at the same time. Besides, when I am working on the > CppClient's code, the JavaClient has been iterating as well, and the > CppClient might lack some additional features in JavaClient. > > Personally, I think for CppClient the first milestone is to finish a > complete write-read procedure and make it a usable feature. So I > choose to implement only the basic ones to make sure we could achieve > the complete write-read milestone ASAP. But when I want to merge the > code, I find that the cpp code to be merged is not strictly identical > to JavaClient, and I am not sure if it is ok to simply mark the lacked > features as TODOs and continue to merge the cpp code though it might > lack some features compared with Java end. > > Besides, currently there is no mechanism to guarantee that the > JavaClient's feature development would soon iterate on CppClient as > well. Maybe we should add some kind of tag to at least mark what > features the CppClient lacks. > > Any suggestions and thoughts are welcome. > > Yours, > Jiaming Xie >
