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
As part of Spin 3, we hope to add new interfaces (e.g. wasi:keyvalue/store) and possibly modify some existing ones (e.g. rdbms-types). So we are likely to need to define new worlds and it seems plausible that they will need to go in a new package version, e.g. fermyon:[email protected]. (Please consider this assumption open to challenge. I am not confident in how this stuff fits together.)
At the moment, all our interfaces (e.g. key-value, sqlite, mysql) are in the fermyon:spin package, meaning they must be versioned together. However, many of these interfaces will not change. This is a pattern we're likely to see again and again over time.
This could also help with modularising SDKs as distinct packages could be pulled in by direct references.
The initial move would be a larger change but the hope is that this would allow us to make smaller and more granular changes in future, and to treat Spin APIs in a similar way to externally defined APIs such as wasi-cloud-core.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
A slight variation to consider here would be to only rename (re-package?) those interfaces that are actually getting breaking changes. While this would make things less consistent, it would also avoid a bunch of boilerplate code like needing to implement identical fermyon:spin/http and spin:http/outbound (?) interfaces. As I type that, it occurs to me that it would also avoid needing to come up with some interface names... 😅
I like the idea of doing it incrementally. I am guessing we will need to move fermyon:[email protected] into deps anyway so that the top-level package can be fermyon:[email protected], and the 3.0 package can cite unchanged interfaces a la fermyon:spin/[email protected]. Only when we change the SQLite interface would we pull it out to its own package. Does that sound right?
As part of Spin 3, we hope to add new interfaces (e.g.
wasi:keyvalue/store
) and possibly modify some existing ones (e.g.rdbms-types
). So we are likely to need to define new worlds and it seems plausible that they will need to go in a new package version, e.g.fermyon:[email protected]
. (Please consider this assumption open to challenge. I am not confident in how this stuff fits together.)At the moment, all our interfaces (e.g. key-value, sqlite, mysql) are in the
fermyon:spin
package, meaning they must be versioned together. However, many of these interfaces will not change. This is a pattern we're likely to see again and again over time.We should consider moving each interface into its own package (e.g.
spin:[email protected]
,spin:[email protected]
) and having the top-levelfermyon:spin
package and worlds import these as dependencies. This would allow interfaces to be revved independently instead of as a big bang. Thusfermyon:spin/[email protected]
might importspin:[email protected]
andspin:[email protected]
; later,fermyon:spin/[email protected]
might rev tospin:[email protected]
but still remain onspin:[email protected]
.This could also help with modularising SDKs as distinct packages could be pulled in by direct references.
The initial move would be a larger change but the hope is that this would allow us to make smaller and more granular changes in future, and to treat Spin APIs in a similar way to externally defined APIs such as wasi-cloud-core.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: