Skip to content

extract message_type specs #22

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.

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: mix
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

mixmix
Copy link
Contributor

@mixmix mixmix commented Jun 9, 2025

Writing the specs, I noticed that

  • the message_type specs took up quite a lot of space
  • I also noticed that it took some care not to leak concepts out of e.g. type 1 spec into the rest of the document
  • I want to make type 2, type 3 which improve on these other types and explore the possibility space... and I don't want to spam or be fighting for attention/ space in the main document

So in the interests of keeping aspects of the spec "decoupled", and setting up a pattern for good growth, I propose we split out the message_type specs into their own documents in this repo.

@tschudin
Copy link

tschudin commented Jun 9, 2025

There is a beauty in SSB's "protocol guide" in the sense that it has everything, in one document. I hope we can have the same with tinySSB - it's the tiny version of SSB, after all. (I know, this is misleading, as going tiny made things more complex).

So what about working with an annex for the message type details, in the same document instead of splatter them?

@mixmix
Copy link
Contributor Author

mixmix commented Jun 11, 2025

I personally think following one hyperlink is acceptable
I expect I'd personally like to deprecate some of the types in the future and say I support 3 + 5. We already see this in the implementations - type 0 is in the code but is just not used in some of the code bases, which makes it take up mind-space.

Happy to park (pause) this till it becomes a problem. It's very possible I'm prematurely optimising 😆

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants