From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp54.i.mail.ru (smtp54.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8006E441841 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:08:35 +0300 (MSK) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 14:08:33 +0000 From: Nikita Pettik Message-ID: <20200325140833.GA1644@tarantool.org> References: <20200325082707.GB18984@atlas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200325082707.GB18984@atlas> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 01/10] box: rfc for stacked diagnostic area List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Konstantin Osipov , tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org On 25 Mar 11:27, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > * Nikita Pettik [20/03/25 09:32]: > > From: Kirill Shcherbatov > > > > Part of #1148 > > This RFC is lgtm. > > I wonder how it corresponds with capability negotiations. If we > have capability negotiations, we don't need iproto_error_stack > *and* iproto_error messages in the protocol, we can negotiate with > the client whether or not it's ready to receive > iproto_error_stack. > > However, I think capability negotiation in client-server protocol > is an overkill. Gradually phasing out old client support is a cleaner > strategy. And simply preserving backward compatibility, which is > already possible with extra fields ignored by old clients, is even better. Agree, I said it long ago. > -- > Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia