On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:33:46PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: > I fail to see your logic here. If you had different proto formats > for the "series of actions" on the master and slave, you'd run into > the same problem. However, this problem actually isn't as much of a > problem as you might think.
A single "message type" number in the record makes it easy. If your greatest number is lower than the number that you got... you know you can't handle it. > As long as the changes you make to the proto add *optional* fields > to the message formats, you won't break a system that has an older > version of the compiled code on it... depending on what those optional fields do... but it also leaves you in a situation that after upgrade, how do you get the table definitions the same everywhere? -- Stewart Smith _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
