You could easily develop an http-to-memcached proxy to allow this. All the partitioning logic could exist in the memcache client embedded in your proxy. This might make some sense because then you would not have to implement the partitioning logic into your clients. I would say the answer to the question is no (memcached does not need to support http).
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:54 AM, j.s. mammen <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, lets not get bogged down by REST defined by Roy Fielding in > 2000. > > My question was simple. > Here it is again, rephrased. > > Do we need to implement a memcached layer whereby we can access the > cached objects by using HTTP protocol. Here is an example of getting a > cached object from a server > GET [server]/mc/object/id1 > > Hope the question is clearer now? > > On Jul 29, 4:30 pm, Henrik Schröder <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would assume he's talking about making memcached expose some sort of > > simple web service api over http. > > > > Although, you could argue that both the ascii protocol and binary > protocol > > are restful, the sure seem to me to fit the definition pretty closely. > > > > /Henrik > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:56, Aaron Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What's a ReST protocol? ReST is a model. > > > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:42 PM, jsm <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What I meant was to add a REST protocol to memcached layer, just like > > > > you have a binary protocol and ascii. > > > > Its up to the user to decide which protocol to use when accessing > > > > memcached objects. > > > > Regards, > > > > J.S.Mammen > > > > > > On Jul 29, 1:49 am, Aaron Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:37 AM, jsm <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > 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. > > > > > >> I read this as requesting memcached native support for structured > > > >> values (e.g. hashes, lists, etc.) -- is that what you meant? > > > > > >> Aaron > > > > > >> >> 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. >
