Skip to content
New issue

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

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

The spec should define semantics and values for proxy_result_t #24

Closed
jpeach opened this issue Apr 30, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

The spec should define semantics and values for proxy_result_t #24

jpeach opened this issue Apr 30, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@jpeach
Copy link

jpeach commented Apr 30, 2021

The spec mentions that proxy_result_t can express either a success or error status, but does not define how it does that. Looking at the implementation (enum class WasmResult), it seems that 0 is success and there is a set of well-defined non-zero error codes. The spec ought to document all these as part.
@jpeach
Copy link
Author

jpeach commented Apr 30, 2021

Looks like this is mostly addressed in #1.

@PiotrSikora
Copy link
Member

The vNEXT is unfortunately still a work-in-progress, and not what Envoy and the existing SDKs are implementing, although I'm actively working on fixing that.

Why are you looking at it? Are you implementing either host or another SDK?

@jpeach
Copy link
Author

jpeach commented May 3, 2021

Why are you looking at it? Are you implementing either host or another SDK?

I was reading the spec to get a sense of the underlying concepts and model for writing extensions.

@mathetake
Copy link
Contributor

I believe this will be resolved by our project overhaul. Please refer to #39 (comment) for the context. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@jpeach @PiotrSikora @mathetake