sorry for all-caps subject ,because my previous email was deleted...i wrote another and all-caps to attract your attention.
On 10月30日, 上午2时38分, Dustin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
