|
Yes, there's definitely one problem I can see with the protocol.
I'll raise it.
On 11/12/2018 01:47, Ed Baunton wrote:
Should an issue be opened against the proto? In
addition, is RBE not complying or inconsistent in some way to
what was agreed above?
Ed
On 10/12/2018 13:48, Jürg Billeter wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:41 +0000, Jim MacArthur wrote:
>> I don't see how you've got to the conclusion that
empty instance and no
>> instance are the same thing. The Bazel protocol does
say "For servers
>> which do not support multiple instances, then the
`instance_name` is the
>> empty path" but that doesn't necessary imply
behaviour for servers which
>> do support it. I can also see mappings to http URLs
which look like
>> they'll always include an instance name or empty
string, but I wasn't
>> considering them authoritative specifications.
> For example, for Execution.Execute() instance_name is a
protobuf string
> field in the ExecuteRequest message. URL mapping is
handled internally
> by gRPC, clients can't normally influence it. Protobuf
messages don't
> allow distinction between unset string fields and empty
string fields
> (the serialization is identical).
>
> I.e., at least for Execution.Execute() empty
instance_name and no
> instance_name are identical. It's impossible for the
server to treat
> them differently. I don't think it makes sense to
distinguish the two
> cases in other places where it would theoretically be
possible. That
> would be inconsistent and confusing, in my opinion.
>
> Cheers,
> Jürg
>
OK, this isn't really a question for BuildStream anymore so
let's agree
that "" and no instance are the same thing in BuildStream's
world.
Google can resolve the ambiguity in protocol buffers.
_______________________________________________
BuildStream-list mailing list
BuildStream-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/buildstream-list
|
