antirez / antirez/RESP3

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

未关闭
#35 0 条评论 1 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看
主要语言
没有语言数据
星标
230
派生
41
PR 合并指标
30 天内没有已合并 PR

描述

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`

贡献指南

这个仓库没有索引到贡献指南

评估

这个 Issue 还没有评估数据。

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。