From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lvasiliev@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtp55.i.mail.ru (smtp55.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.35])
 (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 A398C4696C3
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:05:03 +0300 (MSK)
References: <cover.1587334824.git.lvasiliev@tarantool.org>
 <6d673bc4-c85b-219e-6ff4-79efc7627275@tarantool.org>
From: lvasiliev <lvasiliev@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <91f5cdc5-debf-0056-9d8d-1c9c1eafdadf@tarantool.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:05:01 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6d673bc4-c85b-219e-6ff4-79efc7627275@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH V6 00/10] Extending error
 functionality
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: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>, Kirill Yukhin <kyukhin@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

On 20.04.2020 3:26, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> In short: formally LGTM.
> 
> Long version:
> 
> I don't like doing and reviewing patches in such a hurry.
> This feature clearly lacked planning, design, and discussion
> with community, RFC for the final version before its
> implementation.
> 
> It is still unfinished because of underdesigned traceback
> feature, because of payload absence. IMO, MP_EXT is also an
> overkill. Tuples live fine as MP_ARRAY, and they are the most
> used type. We should have gone for simple MP_MAP, without
> MP_EXT. Just a map.
> 
> It is worth mentioning separately, how hard it is to use the
> error marshaling now, because of this session setting. And
> there still is no way to enable the feature without touching
> the session, even if all my connectors support it. As I
> mentioned, enabling it for every session manually is a
> non-trivial task for a user.
> 
> But we have releases coming, so lets push all in whatever
> state it is, of course.

Hi! Thanks you for the help in implementation.
I tried to write the RFC but my attempt was ignored by everyone.
The first implementation used a map and it was said that MP_EXT
should be used. I will try to take into account the experience
gained and not proceed with the implementation of non-trivial
tasks without LGTM on RFC.
Thanks again for your help.