111 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
111 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
|
# Adding a new protocol?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Every once in a while, someone comes up with the idea of adding support for yet
|
||
|
|
another protocol to curl. After all, curl already supports 25 something
|
||
|
|
protocols and it is the Internet transfer machine for the world.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In the curl project we love protocols and we love supporting many protocols
|
||
|
|
and doing it well.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
So how do you proceed to add a new protocol and what are the requirements?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## No fixed set of requirements
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This document is an attempt to describe things to consider. There is no
|
||
|
|
checklist of the twenty-seven things you need to cross off. We view the entire
|
||
|
|
effort as a whole and then judge if it seems to be the right thing - for
|
||
|
|
now. The more things that look right, fit our patterns and are done in ways
|
||
|
|
that align with our thinking, the better are the chances that we will agree
|
||
|
|
that supporting this protocol is a grand idea.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Mutual benefit is preferred
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
curl is not here for your protocol. Your protocol is not here for curl. The
|
||
|
|
best cooperation and end result occur when all involved parties mutually see
|
||
|
|
and agree that supporting this protocol in curl would be good for everyone.
|
||
|
|
Heck, for the world.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Consider "selling us" the idea that we need an implementation merged in curl,
|
||
|
|
to be fairly important. *Why* do we want curl to support this new protocol?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Protocol requirements
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Client-side
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The protocol implementation is for a client's side of a "communication
|
||
|
|
session".
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Transfer oriented
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The protocol itself should be focused on *transfers*. Be it uploads or
|
||
|
|
downloads or both. It should at least be possible to view the transfers as
|
||
|
|
such, like we can view reading emails over POP3 as a download and sending
|
||
|
|
emails over SMTP as an upload.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
If you cannot even shoehorn the protocol into a transfer focused view, then
|
||
|
|
you are up for a tough argument.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### URL
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
There should be a documented URL format. If there is an RFC for it there is no
|
||
|
|
question about it but the syntax does not have to be a published RFC. It could
|
||
|
|
be enough if it is already in use by other implementations.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
If you make up the syntax just in order to be able to propose it to curl, then
|
||
|
|
you are in a bad place. URLs are designed and defined for interoperability.
|
||
|
|
There should at least be a good chance that other clients and servers can be
|
||
|
|
implemented supporting the same URL syntax and work the same or similar way.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
URLs work on registered 'schemes'. There is a register of [all officially
|
||
|
|
recognized
|
||
|
|
schemes](https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml). If
|
||
|
|
your protocol is not in there, is it really a protocol we want?
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Wide and public use
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The protocol shall already be used or have an expectation of getting used
|
||
|
|
widely. Experimental protocols are better off worked on in experiments first,
|
||
|
|
to prove themselves before they are adopted by curl.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Code
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Of course the code needs to be written, provided, licensed agreeably and it
|
||
|
|
should follow our code guidelines and review comments have to be dealt with.
|
||
|
|
If the implementation needs third party code, that third party code should not
|
||
|
|
have noticeably lesser standards than the curl project itself.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Tests
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
As much of the protocol implementation as possible needs to be verified by
|
||
|
|
curl test cases. We must have the implementation get tested by CI jobs,
|
||
|
|
torture tests and more.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
We have experienced many times in the past how new implementations were brought
|
||
|
|
to curl and immediately once the code had been merged, the originator vanished
|
||
|
|
from the face of the earth. That is fine, but we need to take the necessary
|
||
|
|
precautions so when it happens we are still fine.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Our test infrastructure is powerful enough to test just about every possible
|
||
|
|
protocol - but it might require a bit of an effort to make it happen.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Documentation
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
We cannot assume that users are particularly familiar with details and
|
||
|
|
peculiarities of the protocol. It needs documentation.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Maybe it even needs some internal documentation so that the developers who
|
||
|
|
will try to debug something five years from now can figure out functionality a
|
||
|
|
little easier!
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The protocol specification itself should be freely available without requiring
|
||
|
|
a non-disclosure agreement or similar.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Do not compare
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
We are constantly raising the bar and we are constantly improving the
|
||
|
|
project. A lot of things we did in the past would not be acceptable if done
|
||
|
|
today. Therefore, you might be tempted to use shortcuts or "hacks" you can
|
||
|
|
spot other - existing - protocol implementations have used, but there is
|
||
|
|
nothing to gain from that. The bar has been raised. Former "cheats" will not be
|
||
|
|
tolerated anymore.
|