> It will be nice to have you as part of that discussion. Thank you, I am only pro for this.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 2:58 PM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > Most core contributors moved to working on 3.8.0 earlier this year so > ideas/discussions for 4.x stalled a bit. Now that 3.8.0 is > nearing completion I suspect that 4.x talk will begin again. There is a lot > of focus on driver/server interaction for 4.x so this notion of extension > for providers will come up soon. It will be nice to have you as part of > that discussion. > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:13 AM Andrii Lomakin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Sephen, > > Thank you for your response. > > > > In such a case, I suppose I will provide a PR that makes the extension of > > OpProcessors a relatively easy task and provide several use cases in the > PR > > and as a blog post. > > Hopefully, they will be useful. > > > > As for TP 4, I would appreciate it if you could keep us posted, if you > > don't mind. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 4:09 PM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure that there have been many successful extensions of > > OpProcessor > > > (though you describe yours as doing something for you). I've mostly > seen > > > that providers have found the extensions points insufficient for their > > > needs and end up in a fork or at the netty level. There's something not > > > right there in their abstraction for most cases. I think with the move > to > > > pure HTTP in 4.x it made sense to divest the server of some of the > layers > > > it had. Ultimately, I think extension points for the server in 4.x are > up > > > for discussion. afaik, no decisions have been made as to what the > > > alternative will be. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 3:17 AM Andrii Lomakin > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Good day. > > > > > > > > Could you clarify the reasoning behind the removal of OpProcessors > > > support > > > > in TP 4.0 and what extension mechanics are proposed as an > alternative? > > > > > > > > Example of how we use OpProcessors for protocol extensions: > > > > > > > > 1. Extension of core OpProcessors - during TX processing, IDs of our > > > > elements undergo two phases: temporary and permanent. During which > > their > > > > values are changed. Because query results are streamed, we send > > > additional > > > > metadata that maps temporary IDs to the permanent ones to keep client > > > data > > > > in sync in the final response Frame. > > > > 2. We provide our own OpProcessor, which handles commands related to > > the > > > > management of database instances present on the server. > > > > > > > > Which mechanics are provided for such and similar extension points in > > TP > > > 4? > > > > > > > > > >
