[nanomsg] Re: websocket mapping
- From: Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 00:07:08 -0800
> On Feb 3, 2015, at 11:56 PM, Gonzalo Diethelm (Redacted sender
> "gonzalo.diethelm@xxxxxxxxxxx" for DMARC)
> <dmarc-noreply-outsider@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> On 04 Feb 2015, at 04:14, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>
>>> Cool. Perused `ws.go` and `wss.go`, and it seems like a sane
>>> implementation. Though, do we need a version? e.g., `rep.sp.0.nanomsg.org
>>> <http://rep.sp.0.nanomsg.org/>`
>>
>> I am disinclined at this point. I’d suggest we could add that later, “sp1”,
>> or “1.sp” or somesuch. I wouldn’t bother now.
>
> Please reconsider. If we have learned anything from history, is that a
> version field included from the beginning will save your ass in the future…
>
> Cheers,
> Gonzalo
>
Uh…. I’d agree if this was a binary packed protocol. It isn’t. The value is
trivially extensible in the future. I see no possible way that the absence of
an explicit version field now could cause problems when/if we ever decide we
need to add one for a hypothetical v1. edition.
I.e. imagine we have v0:
req.sp.nanomsg.org <http://req.sp.nanomsg.org/>
And then imagine we want to do v1 later:
req.v1.sp.nanomsg.org <http://req.v1.sp.nanomsg.org/>
(or perhaps, req.spv1.nanomsg.org <http://req.spv1.nanomsg.org/> or
req.sp1.nanomsg.org)
(We can have the debate about which is the best way to add version 1 in the
string later, when it actually happens.) In fact, it isn’t clear to me whether
a hypothetical version 1 would be version 1 of *SP*, or version 1 of the
REQ/REP protocol. I can see that going both ways in the future.
- Garrett
Other related posts:
