[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: jsonrpc.el closer to merging

From: João Távora
Subject: Re: jsonrpc.el closer to merging
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:19:54 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Clément Pit-Claudel <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2018-06-11 18:26, João Távora wrote:
>> In this extension, responses can have a :PARTIAL field, and the endpoint
>> receiving such a request should expect more responses with that ID until
>> a final response with the regular :RESULT field comes in.
>> What do you think?
> I think this looks great! And I love that your patch to implement this
> is quite small and understandable.
> But I'm also wary of adding extensions to a neat & lean library like
> json-rpc without a rock-solid use case (and I don't think my own
> packages provide a solid enough use-case).  I'd be especially worried
> to introduce extensions like this for fear that a future version of
> JSON-RPC might go in a different direction.

It was just a proof of concept and it's backward compatible, but
basically you're right:  I better not focus here.

> Given that the patch is fairly simple, how tricky do you think it
> would be to refactor json-rpc slightly to make it possible for clients
> of the library to implement such an extension?  I haven't looked at
> the code enough to know how it would be done, but I think it would be
> the best of both worlds: json-rpc remains small and with well-defined
> scpoe, but we add enough knobs to allow clients to reuse its
> foundations while implementing a slightly more complex protocol.

> I guess what I'm saying here is that there's a callback-tracking core
> in json-rpc that's useful even for protocols that are not exactly
> json-rpc; managing to expose it in a sufficiently flexible way (to
> allow building vanilla json-rpc and closely related protocols on top
> of it) would be wonderful, and maybe not too hard since the patch to
> add the particular extension I mentioned seems to have been quite
> small :)

I agree.  As you know, there are also downsides to opening "too much"
API (as in you have to maintain it) and the code might become much more
convoluted than adding a single extension, though the advantages of
having something programmable should eventually surpass that.

It shouldn't be terribly hard to do.  In jsonrpc.el, the hairiest part
is jsonrpc-connection-receive and jsonrpc-connection-send, where the
:partial keyword arg needs to be passed to the function, which has a
destructuring lambda list that would currently forbid it (since it falls
outside JSONRPC) That needs to be changed in such a way that without the
extension it is still forbidden, but with it, it isn't.  Also, in
jsonrpc-connection-receive, the last part (where the continuation is
called) would have to be customizable by hook of by generic function.

Finally, in your extension pacakge just add a custom
my-jsonrpc-partial-accepting-request helper that calls
jsonrpc-async-request with a 2-parameter modified callback lambda.

So, since you seem to have grasped the gist of the code, send me a patch
for something like this :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]