Hi everyone! Sorry for jumping in late here, I've been meaning to catch up on this list for a while.
I'm helping Brian with the gearman rewrite in C (hopefully Dustin will be less offended :) and have the client/worker library about done. We will also be wrapping this library with SWIG to get support for even more languages (and eventually write more natural interfaces). I'm starting to look at the server rewrite now, and next will be a persistent queue/relay. If your server dies, your jobs will be there when restarted, and replication can be built on those persistent queues. Personally, I don't like the idea of overloading the memcached protocol to act as a queuing system as well. It will be quite easy to use memcached and gearman together, and there will be multiple ways to do so depending on your needs. Keep an eye on the gearman group for upcoming releases: http://groups.google.com/group/gearman If you have any potential use cases or comments on the project, we'd love to hear them! -Eric On Nov 8, 9:46 am, dormando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's never too late! Just ... depends on who'd do it :) Thegearman > protocol's pretty terse compared to the memcached one... > > So, out of my hands at least. > > On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Aaron Stone wrote: > > > Is it too late to pick a middle course: using memcached binary > > protocol with commands for queues, but implemented as an independent > > project? > > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:02 PM, dormando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It's always been a binary-ish protocol. Brian and a few others are writing > > > a C implementation the client/server. > > > > Initially I was weakly expecting to addgearman'scommands to the binary > > > protocol and having it exist as a storage engine for memcached, but I > > > concede to brian's intent to keep it a separate project :) > > > > -Dormando > > > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Aaron Stone wrote: > > > >> I didn't realize thatgearmanis a binary protocol -- are you just now > > >> defining one? > > > >> Aaron > > > >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Brian Aker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > Hi! > > > >> > Just something else to throw into the equation: > > >> >http://gearmanproject.org/doku.php?id=protocol > > > >> > This is the protocol as outlined byGearman. A few of us are reworking > > >> > it at > > >> > the moment, but keeping backwards compatibility with the current > > >> > version. > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > -Brian > > > >> > On Nov 8, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Aaron Stone wrote: > > > >> >> Heh, nice blog post :-) > > > >> >> I agree that the queues that are out there and using hacked up > > >> >> memcache protocols are doing us a great disservice -- I think if we > > >> >> build a smart way to do a message queue into a binary protocol > > >> >> extension, we can drive minds in the right direction, and provide > > >> >> ourselves with something useful in the process. > > > >> >> Also, it would help us to slow down the rate of splinter projects. > > >> >> Pluggable storage engines and message queues are I think the only > > >> >> areas where the memcached-alikes play. > > > >> >> Aaron > > > >> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Dustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> >>> On Nov 6, 12:48 pm, "Aaron Stone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> >>>> Have a mailing list link? It'd be good to continue with where you > > >> >>>> left > > >> >>>> off / review what you were thinking at the time. > > > >> >>> I wrote about it on my embarrassingly tongue-in-cheek titled blog: > > > >> >>>http://www.rockstarprogrammer.org/post/2008/oct/04/what-matters-async... > > > >> > -- > > >> > _______________________________________________________ > > >> > Brian "Krow" Aker, brian at tangent.org > > >> > Seattle, Washington > > >> >http://krow.net/ <-- Me > > >> >http://tangent.org/ <-- Software > > >> > _______________________________________________________ > > >> > You can't grep a dead tree.
