undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyoshuaw1y ago0 comments

> Are there any forces in place to prevent the (de facto) mandatory API from becoming so complex that Google (or Fastly) is the only org capable of maintaining an implementation?

The big change going from WASI 0.1 to WASI 0.2 is that we decoupled the calling convention (Wasm Components) from the actual syscall APIs (WASI). That enabled us to make the various syscall APIs modular and composable.

Because CDN functions probably shouldn't know about TCP; and CLI applications probably don't care about blob storage. And now they don't need to. Take a look at the WASI Proposals page [1] for an overview of all WASI APIs.

[1]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/WASI/blob/main/Proposals.md

0 comments

apitman1y ago

So basically the reasoning is that things like wasi-http wouldn't be mandatory for a compliant implementation? That would be good.

Thanks for the link. I was trying to find a single page with everything listed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

apitman1y ago

So basically the reasoning is that things like wasi-http wouldn't be mandatory for a compliant implementation? That would be good.

Thanks for the link. I was trying to find a single page with everything listed.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse