From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com (mail-lf1-f66.google.com
 [209.85.167.66])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F024441841
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:13:24 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id t16so600696lfl.2
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Wed, 25 Mar 2020 04:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:13:22 +0300
From: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200325111322.GB5417@atlas>
References: <cover.1585053742.git.lvasiliev@tarantool.org>
 <7982fc7b062b2424689a990de1f76ca2ff0e4f50.1585053743.git.lvasiliev@tarantool.org>
 <20200324200216.GA18984@atlas>
 <178dd6a0-cdee-532c-3d0a-af76062d5f6c@tarantool.org>
 <20200325084205.GG18984@atlas>
 <CADqioP3WatCGO6MdYSSH9bxD_kJcOpYjFxqV=uSh87_0WTWnew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADqioP3WatCGO6MdYSSH9bxD_kJcOpYjFxqV=uSh87_0WTWnew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 3/6] iproto: Add negotiation phase
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Eugene Leonovich <gen.work@gmail.com>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

* Eugene Leonovich <gen.work@gmail.com> [20/03/25 14:00]:
> > A much simpler way to do it is to have a server switch to enable
> > new features.
> > It is less flexible, of course, because you can't have old and new
> > clients, but do you really want to have old and new clients?
> 
> 
> I do agree with Kostya, I think it's a good compromise. In my humble
> opinion, the extended error feature in its current state is not worth the
> complexity and overhead it adds. Instead, why not introduce a Tarantool
> setting to choose whether you want to deal with a legacy or extended error
> response type (and it's very unlikely that someone will need to have 2
> types at the same time). By default this setting will be set to use the
> legacy mode, then after N minor 2.x releases, it can be changed to use the
> new error type, the setting itself will be marked as deprecated and removed
> in the next major release. From a connector's point of view, it will also
> be easy to check if there are any additional fields in the response body,
> which would mean that the connector has received a "new" error.


More community on the patches list! Yay!

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia