libp2p / libp2p/observer-toolkit
Comments on pull-based introspection protocol
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- JavaScript
- Stars
- 3
- Forks
- 1
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Given that the original desire was for a backpressure-aware protocol (not a protocol that avoids backpressure), I'd like to see a rationale of tradeoffs of each approach.
- Push-based with backpressure signalling (we had talked about a "loss of fidelity" warning message).
- Pull-based with no possibility of backpressure.
IMO, the pull-based model simplifies the state reporting side of things, but it makes real-time events firehoses very cumbersome, as now the server is obliged to buffer events in memory and wait until the client requests them.
Drawing from industry de-facto standards, Prometheus is pull-based, and Jaeger is push based.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the existing issue discussion and the observer-toolkit protocol implementation; the payload names no file, test, or entry point. Document the tradeoffs between push-based backpressure signalling and pull-based reporting, with a clear rationale for the selected direction.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- javascript
- Domain
- networking, observability
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100