antirez / antirez/RESP3

Carification of attributes: arity, key uniquity, and permitted key types

Abierto
#35 0 comentarios 1 reacción 0 asignados Ver en GitHub
Lenguaje dominante
Sin datos de lenguaje
Estrellas
230
Forks
41
Métricas de merge de PR
Sin PR fusionados en 30 d

Descripción

Arity
---

For any (following) element, it seems clear that attributes can be omitted or present, but it isn't
explicit whether they can be repeated. For example, we know this is valid:

``` txt
|1
+ttl
:3600
:3
```

but is *this* valid

``` txt
|1
+ttl
:3600
|1
+priority
:7
:3
````

and if so (my personal preference would be "no, that isn't valid"), is it semantically identical to:

``` txt
|2
+ttl
:3600
+priority
:7
:3
````

or does it need to be possible to tell between the two scenarios?

---

Uniquity
---

How is the following to be interpreted?

``` txt
|2
+ttl
:3600
+ttl
:9001
:3
````

is this:

- illegal
- valid, last value wins (so: `ttl` = `9001`)
- valid, all values should be preserved (so: `ttl` = `[3600, 9001]` in some way)
- something else?

---

Permitted Key Types
---

(a lot of this may cross over into `map` more generally)

In a lot of platforms, it may be hard to reliably implement maps that can take arbitrary types as keys, as the equality semantics are very awkward. In reality, I can see a lot of clients would want to restrict handling to string-like types, as that is what most attributes are going to be keyed as. Now, sure, clients could choose to just treat all keys as blobs, but that has other problems.

As a pragmatic note, it may be sensible to consider whether it is actually required for attributes (and maps?) to allow keys that are, say, integers, doubles, big integers, in the case of attributes, it *might* even be prudent to limit it to simple strings, i.e. `+foo`

Guía de contribución

No hay ninguna guía de contribución indexada para este repositorio

Evaluación

Este issue todavía no se ha evaluado.

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.