On 05/18/2012 04:46 PM, Loic d'Anterroches wrote: > More than just in case. What you are mentioning here is also a reason > some of the users are advocating a tnetstring answer from the handler to > M2 and not just a raw message. As you send a raw message at the moment, > outside of the "empty message" hack to close a connection from the > handler (or accessing the control port), you cannot do more. With a > tnetstring for M2, we could tell M2 to close the connection at the end, > rate limit, consider the message as "non valuable" in the case of > streaming, so if the buffer is full, just drop the message, etc. Way > more control, cleanly encapsulated.
A bit offtopic, how's the general plan for that? I'd be more for getting out the next release as it is, and only then focus on this tnetstring change, if at all - as that's the hardest BC break we've ever had iirc. Greetings, Florian
