search

radareorg / ideas

4 stars 1 forks source link

Providing RPC interface via r2pipe #179

Open XVilka opened 7 years ago

XVilka commented 7 years ago

Like in Neovim - https://neovim.io/doc/user/msgpack_rpc.html

XVilka commented 7 years ago

@radare @chinmaydd @ZhangZhuoSJTU what do you think about this? Rather than making an abstraction in r2pipe-api.

radare commented 7 years ago

Unnecesarily complicated when we have r2pipe that works already, having another way to use the api when the api may change its not a good idea imho. We can also use mig, xmlrpc, dbus... but that just adds another transport for running stuff remotely. But we have the bindings, r2pipe, the native api.. and the direct use of apis requires more work than use the commands. Low prio for me and if anytime is done we should have better c api tests and design discussions

On 12 Jul 2017, at 06:33, Anton Kochkov notifications@github.com wrote:

@radare @chinmaydd @ZhangZhuoSJTU what do you think about this? Rather than making an abstraction in r2pipe-api.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

chinmaydd commented 7 years ago

Although I like the idea, I agree with @radare that we should definitely have the API abstraction. But I kind of disagree on the fact that it will complicate things that much. This would benefit us by making clients written in different programming languages more adhere to a consistent ideology of communicating with r2.

radare commented 7 years ago

My idea for r2pipe-api was to define the api in a json or other descriptive format and use that to generate the apis for each language at compile or runtime.

The problem is that it ends up having completely non-idiomatic apis. And it was feeling alien to use that from different langs

On 12 Jul 2017, at 16:51, Chinmay Deshpande notifications@github.com wrote:

Although I like the idea, I agree with @radare that we should definitely have the API abstraction. But I kind of disagree on the fact that it will complicate things that much. This would benefit us by making clients written in different programming languages more adhere to a consistent ideology of communicating with r2.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

ret2libc commented 4 years ago

This issue has been moved from radareorg/radare2 to radareorg/ideas as we are trying to clean our backlog and this issue has probably been created a long while ago. This is an effort to help contributors understand what are the actionable items they can work on, prioritize issues better and help users find active/duplicated issues more easily. If this is not an enhancement/improvement/general idea but a bug, feel free to ask for re-transfer to main repo. Thanks for your understanding and contribution with this issue.