Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

History section of messaging spec is incorrect #402

epatters opened this Issue Apr 26, 2011 · 6 comments


None yet
3 participants

epatters commented Apr 26, 2011

The section of the messaging spec describing the history protocol is outdated.

Are we dropping 'history_request' in favor of the (less flexible) 'history_tail_request'? If so, we need to change the spec. If not, we should implement the full protocol using Thomas' new history manager.


takluyver commented Apr 28, 2011

Ah, yes, that was me. I wasn't really aware there was a spec when I changed it, I was just making it work.

I didn't like the way that the get_history method did a handful of different things depending on its input, so I split it up into three methods: get_range, get_tail and search. I don't know if it makes more sense to have a different request type for each, or unify them under a history_request with a parameter to specify what kind of request is being made.


epatters commented Apr 28, 2011

I prefer a single, unified history_request myself, but I don't have a very strong opinion about this.

Let's see what @fperez and @ellisonbg think, since they were principally responsible for writing this part of the spec.


ellisonbg commented Apr 28, 2011

Histories can get really big and since this involves network traffic, I like the idea of having more fine grained history recall mechanisms.


takluyver commented May 3, 2011

I think the granularity and network traffic will be about the same. It's a semantic question of whether we have history_tail_request, history_range_request, history_search_request, or lump them all into history_request and use a parameter (hist_request_type?) to distinguish them. I think I'd lean towards a single history_request, although I don't have a strong feeling either way.


takluyver commented May 3, 2011

See pull request #408.

@takluyver takluyver was assigned May 3, 2011


takluyver commented May 11, 2011

Closed by merge of PR #408.

@takluyver takluyver closed this May 11, 2011

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment