Re: Backend protocol wanted features

Ok well if you define as new protocol as any change, regardless of backwards compatibility, then yes.  I would define a
“newprotocol” as something that has breaking changes with a previous version or at the very least a known deviation
fromexisting behavior. 

Extending the protocol with some “well-defined” notifications (using the system that is already well-defined) is not
somethingI would consider a new protocol.  

I guess like you suggested we’re talking about the semantics of a “3.1” versus “4.0”.  I’m looking for mostly “3.1”
typeof stuff. 

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So maybe they all are fairly easily implementable in the current protocol?
>
> New messages => new protocol.
>
> For instance "schema_notification" message need to be well-defined,
> thus it deserves its own entry in the protocol documentation.
> Doesn't it?
> Vladimir