You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Trying to store RabbitMQ bindings in Khepri appears to be difficult. A binding key is made of the #binding{} record itself. It is uneasy to split into multiple path components in Khepri because it contains a variable number of arguments.
We could convert the record to a binary, but it's not the best user experience. Ideally, we should allow complex structured types in Khepri paths so that the binding record can be stored as a path component directly.
There are several questions to answer while designing that change:
The path API: how to store primitive & complex structures in a path without conflicting with ?ROOT_NODE-like macros (characters) and conditions (tuples)?
How to represent them in a path string for the simpler API and in preparation of the OpenData REST API?
What conditions could/should we add to do pattern matching on complex path components or comparisons with e.g. integer path components?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
Trying to store RabbitMQ bindings in Khepri appears to be difficult. A binding key is made of the
#binding{}
record itself. It is uneasy to split into multiple path components in Khepri because it contains a variable number of arguments.We could convert the record to a binary, but it's not the best user experience. Ideally, we should allow complex structured types in Khepri paths so that the binding record can be stored as a path component directly.
There are several questions to answer while designing that change:
?ROOT_NODE
-like macros (characters) and conditions (tuples)?Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions