It's nice to have a text protocol for human interaction over the wire, but I am personally comfortable making certain things available only via the binary protocol.
Aaron On Thu, Dec 20, 2007, Dustin Sallings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:14, Kieran Benton wrote: > >> But it is very convenient to just have to not worry about falling foul >> of not supported characters in keys. Its obviously an easy matter if >> you >> are building a site that is for use with memcached from the start, but >> if you are moving to memcached from another cache system (as I am) >> then >> it is a bit of a worry if delimiters you have previously been using >> might now be treated as erroneous. > > Understood, but it's a limitation of having a text protocol. It *is* > possible to remove many of the restrictions in the binary protocol, > but I don't think it's very desirable to make keys in the binary > protocol you can't get/set/delete in the text protocol. At least, not > unless the text protocol becomes deprecated and every client speaks > binary. > >> Are we saying that as long as you use UTF-8 for the key, and that it >> is >> not longer that 250 bytes, then all is fine with both text and binary >> protocols? If so then I think we should update the docs to say so >> and be >> happy :) > > In the latest revision, we expanded the space of the key size from 8 > bits to 16 bits in the protocol. That's not saying that you can have > more than 250 bytes yet, but it means that it's at least possible on > the wire. > > -- > Dustin Sallings > > --
