[nanomsg] Re: backtrace headers implemented for survey/respondent protocol

  • From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:33:50 -0700

I’m still very much interested in integrating this change.  I’ve gotten some 
limited review of the docs — the only real change I think was a nit (req-reply 
still in the header), which I’ve fixed.  There has been almost no actual code 
feedback.

I’m probably going to go ahead and drive forward with mangos at this point — 
this will break the wire compatibility with libnanomsg.  But given the lack of 
active participation from the libnanomsg “core” team, I’m left to wonder if the 
changes will move forward.  Meanwhile, I *need* these changes.

Martin did, btw, approve the *approach*, though I’m unaware if he’s ever looked 
at my code in the PR.

Martin, I think you need to seriously consider appointing someone else to help 
with maintainership duties.  Having PRs sit for weeks or longer with no 
meaningful feedback is not a healthy place for the project to be.

        - Garrett

> On Mar 12, 2015, at 7:29 AM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Ping?  Any chance anyone is going to have time to code review this for me? 
> 
>       - Garrett
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> 
>> I’ve implemented the backtrace support to fix surveyor, as we’ve discussed 
>> here before.  It is now possible to use multiple surveyors with a 
>> respondent, using this code.  (And as a result of doing this work, I can see 
>> why Drew is concerned about the performance implications.  Frankly the code 
>> there suffers a bit from some extra allocations and copies that I think a 
>> smarter implementation could eliminate.)
>> 
>> The code for this is in the following PR, which I would appreciate folks 
>> reviewing:
>> 
>> https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/pull/388 
>> <https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/pull/388>
>> 
>> Hopefully if it gets a meaningful review, it can be mainlined.  (Note that 
>> at this point I think I have thumbs-up on the design at least, from Martin 
>> and any of the other stakeholders who’ve spoken up.)
>> 
>> I’m also happy to hear about any test results, successful or otherwise, 
>> using this code.
>> 
>> I’ve not yet implemented the compatible code for this in mangos, but I 
>> expect it won’t take long.  And, the backtrace support will have a much 
>> lower impact on mangos than it did on libnanomsg. :-)
>> 
>> Note that I did not keep support for the old protocol around, but I did take 
>> care to make sure we don’t accidentally try to make the old protocol and new 
>> speak together incorrectly, except for the websocket stuff which has a 
>> negotiation protocol so new that I strongly doubt anyone has put it into 
>> production yet, particularly with surveyor/respondent topologies.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>>   - Garrett
>> 
> 

Other related posts: