On Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:40:59 AM UTC-7, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > Why would you want to switch protocols in the middle of a connection? Is > it documented that this is possible? Unless it is I wouldn't consider > the fact that you have to stick with the protocol you have initially > chosen as a serious bug. >
I've forgotten to respond to this a couple of times now... Sorry about that. I agree with the above, but will provide some more detail: 1. The binary protocol has a superset of the functionality of the text protocol. If you can use both, just use binary. If you find something that invalidates this assertion, *that* is a bug. 2. Dynamically switching protocols would be more expensive and only benefit this test. One of the benefits of the binary protocol is knowing exactly how many bytes to read process at each step. It's *possible* to make an efficient implementation of a dynamic protocol switching memcached sever, maybe even to do so efficiently, but we'd need a really hard sell on the benefits and an inability to find an alternative. Also, it's a bit rude to send an all-caps subject on an email to a bunch of people. This isn't "very serious" and hasn't affected any one of the billions of memcached requests that servers processed while I was writing this sentence.
