Re: [ELPA] New package: dape

[Daniel Pettersson <daniel@dpettersson.net>]

> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 5:24 PM João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you know of any other significant/fundamental differences (say, such as a
> message type which is neither a request, nor a response, nor a notification)?

Notification, request and response maps to events, request and
response. The biggest difference might be the reverse request
but that could be implemented as an notification/event in a pinch.
There are two things that can be a bit of a challenge, maybe:
- DAP servers are not that well behaved in general, with a pipe
  connection they like to use std out as they please (none DAP
  messages).
- I don't know its a dape problem or not but it's not that hard to
  provoke some servers to send broken messages if they user chooses to
  continue the execution while the server is in the middle of responding

This means that the parsing needs to do some cleanup during.

> If I were to try to do these jsonrpc.el changes to accomodate DAP protocols,
> would you accept a PR to dape.el adding jsonrpc.el as a dependency to
> dape.el?

More then happy to offload some of the work ;) I think that would
greatly improve the performance and stability of dape to reuse some
well tested software. I also thin that dape might be able to reuse
some parts of eglot, the repl completion for example, I don't know
what the way forward would be for that.