docs: add optional retrieval hint to causal history in sds #130
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
adklempner
force-pushed
the
sds-history-entry
branch
from
6ff5599 to
5be7265
Compare
jm-clius
approved these changes
Feb 19, 2025
| @@ -137,6 +142,8 @@ include this in the `lamport_timestamp` field. | |||
| and include these in an ordered list in the `causal_history` field. | |||
| The number of message IDs to include in the `causal_history` depends on the application. | |||
| We recommend a causal history of two message IDs. | |||
| * the participant MAY include a `retrieval_hint` in the `HistoryEntry` | |||
| for each message ID in the `causal_history` field. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps just need more context where this field is first introduced:
Suggested change
| for each message ID in the `causal_history` field. | |
| for each message ID in the `causal_history` field. | |
| This is an application-specific field to facilitate retrieval of messages, | |
| e.g. from high-availability caches. |
Comment on lines
+216
to
+217
| (high-availability cache) or other peers | ||
| using the `retrieval_hint` in the `HistoryEntry`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Subtle difference, but it's important that retrieval can happen without using the retrieval_hint.
Suggested change
| (high-availability cache) or other peers | |
| using the `retrieval_hint` in the `HistoryEntry`. | |
| (high-availability cache) or other peers. | |
| It MAY use the application-specific `retrieval_hint` in the `HistoryEntry` to facilitate retrieval. |
Comment on lines
79
to
80
| string message_id = 2; // Unique identifier of the message | ||
| string channel_id = 3; // Identifier of the channel to which the message belongs |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While we're here, should we review the field types for the rest of the Message? The choice of string for message_id and channel_id was heavily influenced by similar protocols and current Status code, but might not be the most practical from implementation perspective: I can imagine bytes perhaps being more reasonable for message_id and int32 for channel_id.
Any opinions here? cc @shash256
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.