On Dec 19, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Daniel Herring wrote: > On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Scott McKay wrote: >> On Dec 17, 2010, at 4:57 PM, aeri...@xs4all.nl wrote: >> >>> On 17 dec 2010, at 22:15, Eli Naeher <enae...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Right now I usually have (under screen) one instance of Emacs for >>>> personal projects (for which I try to use the latest Slime and Swank) >>>> and one for work (where they do not get updated so frequently), and >>>> sometimes I need to start a third instance if I am doing work on an >>>> older maintenance branch of the software. It seems like there should >>>> be a way to switch between Slime versions within the same running >>>> Emacs, but I have yet to figure it out. >>> >>> Not a direct question to Eli, but why is Slime so version specific >>> anyway? >>> >> >> Ya have to wonder if Slime/Swank should be used Protocol Buffers >> or Thrift to do their RPC. These both support versioned protocols, >> and it would be great to have a CL binding to Protocol Buffers. > > As I understand it, the wire protocol is generally the stable part of Slime. > The RPC aspects (what the server commands do) is what has deep implications > and changes frequently. >
But what I am saying is, use something that supports versioned wire protocols, and instead of willy-nilly changing the existing API frequently, change it in constrained ways, increment a version number, and use a new version of the wire protocol. Yes, it's work. > [aside] Protocol buffers are an unnecessarily complicated reinvention of the > wheel. If the big G wasn't using them, everyone would be using one of the > preexisting formats (e.g. XDR). See MapReduce for a related theme. IMO, a > binding to Apache Camel or OpenSplice DDS would be much more interesting. > > - Daniel _______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro