On Jul 28, 8:02 pm, Rajesh Nair <[email protected]> wrote: > Gavin, > > If you go by the strict sense of word, HTTP protocol is not a pre-requisite > for REST service. > It requires a protocol which supports linking entities through URIs. It is > very much possible to implement a RESTful service by coming up with own URI > protocol for memcached messages > > something like : > mc://<memcached-cluster>/messages/<key> > > and the transport layer can be pretty much the same TCP to not add any > overhead. > > JSM, > > What is the value-add you are looking from the RESTful version of the > memcached API?
Basically to be able to use without binding to any particular language. > > Regards, > Rajesh Nair > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Gavin M. Roy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why add the HTTP protocol overhead? REST/HTTP would add ~75Mbps of > > additional traffic at 100k gets per second by saying there's a rough 100 > > byte overhead per request over the ASCII protocol. I base the 100 bytes by > > the HTTP GET request, minimal request headers and minimal response > > headers. The binary protocol is very terse in comparison to the ASCII > > protocol. In addition netcat or telnet works as good as curl for drop dead > > simplicity. Don't get me wrong, it would be neat, but shouldn't be > > considered in moderately well used memcached environments. > > > Regards, > > > Gavin > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:43 AM, jsm <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Anyone writing or planning to write a REST API for memcached? > >> If no such plan, I would be interested in writing a REST API. > >> Any suggestions, comments welcome.
