Skip to content

ABI v0.3.0 scope & tracking issue #77

New issue

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

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

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Open
11 tasks
PiotrSikora opened this issue Jan 9, 2025 · 2 comments
Open
11 tasks

ABI v0.3.0 scope & tracking issue #77

PiotrSikora opened this issue Jan 9, 2025 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@PiotrSikora
Copy link
Member

There are 3 groups of features that I believe should be addressed and implemented as part of ABI v0.3.0:

Fixes for well-known and outstanding issues:

Features that require changes to the existing function signatures, so it's better to get them in now:

Features for extensibility:

Everything else can be done either using feature flags or FFI, so it can be added afterwards without ABI changes.

cc @mpwarres @martijneken @leonm1 @wbpcode @thibaultcha @shukitchan

@PiotrSikora PiotrSikora self-assigned this Jan 9, 2025
@mpwarres
Copy link

@PiotrSikora one item not in the current list is #54 , for async KV get/set. Does that fall into the "Everything else can be done either using feature flags or FFI" category?

@PiotrSikora
Copy link
Member Author

@mpwarres I think it would be helpful to keep new features out of v0.3.0 to avoid extra blockers and minimize number of changes to get things going... But the availability of "async K/V" is going to be advertised the same way whether it's an optional feature from v0.3.0 or something added via feature flags, so it really shouldn't matter one way or the other.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants