Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Comparing Protocol Buffers and the C++ Middleware Writer
80 views
Skip to first unread message
woodb...@gmail.com
Aug 8, 2016, 1:43:33 AM8/8/16
to
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38786210/deserialize-data-on-the-fly-from-stream-or-file
I was looking at an answer to the question there. The guy
suggests using Protocol Buffers saying:
1 It can be used on wire (TCP etc.)
2 Simple grammar to write the .proto file for composing your own messages
3 Cross platform & available with multiple languages
4 Very efficient compared to JSON & XML
5 Generates header & source files for handy getter, setter, serialize, deserialize & debugging purpose
I'll go through the above items and talk about how they
compare to the C++ Middleware Writer (CMW).
1 CMW code can also be used with network protocols.
2 The CMW also has a simple grammar but has "middle"
files rather than .proto files.
3 The CMW supports multiple platforms, but it doesn't
support multiple languages. G-d willing, in the future,
we will support more languages.
4 Should be much more efficient than either JSON or XML, but
I don't have any numbers.
5 Generates headers (only) for serialization/messaging purposes.
The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
There are a number of advantages to that:
“Middleware-as-a-service” will continue to disrupt the market
for traditional middleware in 2016
http://www.reseller.co.nz/article/590705/middleware-as-a-service-turns-enterprise-integration-its-head/
---------------------------------------------------
"The advantage is that the consumer can quickly be up
and running using the SaaS solution and does not have
to manage and maintain the application freeing up
precious IT resources to work on other priorities.
Another advantage is that the SaaS provider keeps up
with changes in technology so that the consumer does
not have to."
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/internet/cloud-services/mike-kavis-architecting-a-cloud-1214419/2
----------------------------------------------------
Beyond those technical advantages, there's also the
joy of knowing that your business model is able to
serve an increasingly lawless/chaotic world. Ebenezer
Enterprises is increasingly lawful and orderly, but we
are an exception to the rule. The US used to be a
force for law and order, but, partly due to weak
leadership in the Oval Office (Clinton, Bushes, Obama),
we aren't as strong on that as we used to be. So like
Europe and other places, we are paying a heavy price --
an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net
I was looking at an answer to the question there. The guy
suggests using Protocol Buffers saying:
1 It can be used on wire (TCP etc.)
2 Simple grammar to write the .proto file for composing your own messages
3 Cross platform & available with multiple languages
4 Very efficient compared to JSON & XML
5 Generates header & source files for handy getter, setter, serialize, deserialize & debugging purpose
I'll go through the above items and talk about how they
compare to the C++ Middleware Writer (CMW).
1 CMW code can also be used with network protocols.
2 The CMW also has a simple grammar but has "middle"
files rather than .proto files.
3 The CMW supports multiple platforms, but it doesn't
support multiple languages. G-d willing, in the future,
we will support more languages.
4 Should be much more efficient than either JSON or XML, but
I don't have any numbers.
5 Generates headers (only) for serialization/messaging purposes.
The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
There are a number of advantages to that:
“Middleware-as-a-service” will continue to disrupt the market
for traditional middleware in 2016
http://www.reseller.co.nz/article/590705/middleware-as-a-service-turns-enterprise-integration-its-head/
---------------------------------------------------
"The advantage is that the consumer can quickly be up
and running using the SaaS solution and does not have
to manage and maintain the application freeing up
precious IT resources to work on other priorities.
Another advantage is that the SaaS provider keeps up
with changes in technology so that the consumer does
not have to."
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/internet/cloud-services/mike-kavis-architecting-a-cloud-1214419/2
----------------------------------------------------
Beyond those technical advantages, there's also the
joy of knowing that your business model is able to
serve an increasingly lawless/chaotic world. Ebenezer
Enterprises is increasingly lawful and orderly, but we
are an exception to the rule. The US used to be a
force for law and order, but, partly due to weak
leadership in the Oval Office (Clinton, Bushes, Obama),
we aren't as strong on that as we used to be. So like
Europe and other places, we are paying a heavy price --
an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net
woodb...@gmail.com
Aug 8, 2016, 2:14:13 AM8/8/16
to
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 12:43:33 AM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Beyond those technical advantages, there's also the
> joy of knowing that your business model is able to
> serve an increasingly lawless/chaotic world. Ebenezer
> Enterprises is increasingly lawful and orderly, but we
> are an exception to the rule.
This song talks about being protected in the eye
> Beyond those technical advantages, there's also the
> joy of knowing that your business model is able to
> serve an increasingly lawless/chaotic world. Ebenezer
> Enterprises is increasingly lawful and orderly, but we
> are an exception to the rule.
of the storm.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=in+the+eye+of+the+storm+ryan+stevenson&t=h_&ia=videos&iai=-sx8wTnnfSc
Ian Collins
Aug 8, 2016, 2:27:18 AM8/8/16
to
On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
working with.
--
Ian
<snip>
> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
working with.
--
Ian
Alf P. Steinbach
Aug 8, 2016, 4:58:32 AM8/8/16
to
Cheers!,
- Alf
jacobnavia
Aug 8, 2016, 7:30:25 AM8/8/16
to
Jacob
Paris, France
Daniel
Aug 8, 2016, 7:53:23 AM8/8/16
to
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 2:14:13 AM UTC-4, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> This song talks about being protected in the eye
> of the storm.
>
This song talks about what happens to Middleware writers who don't thinks it's
>
> This song talks about being protected in the eye
> of the storm.
>
necessary to follow de facto standards for serialization/deserialization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2-ZVxpVjc
Ben Bacarisse
Aug 8, 2016, 8:48:52 AM8/8/16
to
jacobnavia <ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 08/08/2016 à 10:58, Alf P. Steinbach a écrit :
>> On 08.08.2016 08:27, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
>>>
>>> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
>>> working with.
>>
>> Hey, it's its, not it's.
<snip>
> Le 08/08/2016 à 10:58, Alf P. Steinbach a écrit :
>> On 08.08.2016 08:27, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
>>>
>>> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
>>> working with.
>>
>> Hey, it's its, not it's.
> care to explain for the english impaired?
"It's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it has" ("it's been ages since we
spoke", "it's to hot out there"). "Its" is a possessive pronoun like
his and yours. Many of these have an 's' at the end, but none have an
apostrophe.
When you write "it's" replace it with "it is" to see if that's what you
want. To check if "its" is right, try using "their" or "his" in its
place. The sentence won't make sense, but it will have the right shape.
--
Ben.
Fred.Zwarts
Aug 8, 2016, 8:54:32 AM8/8/16
to
"jacobnavia" schreef in bericht news:no9qg6$g6j$1...@dont-email.me...
It's about spelling and the difference between "its" and "it's", where
"it's" is short for "it is", whereas "its" must be followed by a noun, which
is roughly the same as the noun followed by "of it". "In the sentence above,
"it's use" should be "its use", because one could say "use of it", not "it
is use". It is a somewhat strange rule, because this is the (almost?) only
exception to the rule that a genitive is expressed with "apostophe s" in
English. So, the error is understandable.
"it's" is short for "it is", whereas "its" must be followed by a noun, which
is roughly the same as the noun followed by "of it". "In the sentence above,
"it's use" should be "its use", because one could say "use of it", not "it
is use". It is a somewhat strange rule, because this is the (almost?) only
exception to the rule that a genitive is expressed with "apostophe s" in
English. So, the error is understandable.
jacobnavia
Aug 8, 2016, 8:55:42 AM8/8/16
to
jacobnavia
Aug 8, 2016, 8:55:52 AM8/8/16
to
David Brown
Aug 8, 2016, 8:57:54 AM8/8/16
to
"it's" is an abbreviation for "it is". "its" is the possessive pronoun.
Thus:
It's a nice day.
The dog caught its ball.
Ian had used "it's", when he should have used "its".
It's common to get these mixed up sometimes, even for native speakers.
Daniel
Aug 8, 2016, 9:10:09 AM8/8/16
to
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 4:58:32 AM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> >
> > Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
> > working with.
>
> Hey, it's its, not it's.
>
Right, so SFINAE implies it _is_ suitable for the projects he's currently working on.
> >
> > Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
> > working with.
>
> Hey, it's its, not it's.
>
Daniel
Chris Vine
Aug 8, 2016, 11:01:26 AM8/8/16
to
On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 14:54:22 +0200
"Fred.Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> wrote:
[snip]
In the expression referred to ("its use") it is a possessive adjective,
equivalent to 'zijn' in your own language. Other possessive adjectives
are my, your, his, her, our and their (the religious maniacs on this
group would probably also include 'thy'). The word 'its' can also be
used as a possessive pronoun, but that was not the case in the usage in
question.
The genitive is one of the few remaining old case forms for nouns in
English. I believe Dutch also used to have the same form of a
suffixed s, at least where the noun is the name of a person (and maybe
still has, I don't know).
Chris
"Fred.Zwarts" <F.Zw...@KVI.nl> wrote:
[snip]
> It's about spelling and the difference between "its" and "it's",
> where "it's" is short for "it is", whereas "its" must be followed by
> a noun, which is roughly the same as the noun followed by "of it".
> "In the sentence above, "it's use" should be "its use", because one
> could say "use of it", not "it is use". It is a somewhat strange
> rule, because this is the (almost?) only exception to the rule that a
> genitive is expressed with "apostophe s" in English. So, the error is
> understandable.
You are right that it is understandable, but 'its' is not a genitive.
> where "it's" is short for "it is", whereas "its" must be followed by
> a noun, which is roughly the same as the noun followed by "of it".
> "In the sentence above, "it's use" should be "its use", because one
> could say "use of it", not "it is use". It is a somewhat strange
> rule, because this is the (almost?) only exception to the rule that a
> genitive is expressed with "apostophe s" in English. So, the error is
> understandable.
In the expression referred to ("its use") it is a possessive adjective,
equivalent to 'zijn' in your own language. Other possessive adjectives
are my, your, his, her, our and their (the religious maniacs on this
group would probably also include 'thy'). The word 'its' can also be
used as a possessive pronoun, but that was not the case in the usage in
question.
The genitive is one of the few remaining old case forms for nouns in
English. I believe Dutch also used to have the same form of a
suffixed s, at least where the noun is the name of a person (and maybe
still has, I don't know).
Chris
Louis Krupp
Aug 8, 2016, 2:10:04 PM8/8/16
to
On Mon, 08 Aug 2016 13:48:38 +0100, Ben Bacarisse
<ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>jacobnavia <ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>
>> Le 08/08/2016 à 10:58, Alf P. Steinbach a écrit :
>>> On 08.08.2016 08:27, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
>>>>
>>>> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
>>>> working with.
>>>
>>> Hey, it's its, not it's.
><snip>
>> care to explain for the english impaired?
>
>"It's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it has" ("it's been ages since we
>spoke", "it's to hot out there").
I believe you meant to write "It's too hot out there."
<ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>jacobnavia <ja...@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>
>> Le 08/08/2016 à 10:58, Alf P. Steinbach a écrit :
>>> On 08.08.2016 08:27, Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
>>>>
>>>> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
>>>> working with.
>>>
>>> Hey, it's its, not it's.
><snip>
>> care to explain for the english impaired?
>
>"It's" is a contraction of "it is" or "it has" ("it's been ages since we
>spoke", "it's to hot out there").
:)
Louis
Ben Bacarisse
Aug 8, 2016, 2:14:43 PM8/8/16
to
and/or garmmar!
--
Ben.
woodb...@gmail.com
Aug 8, 2016, 6:03:02 PM8/8/16
to
wouldn't be acceptable for your projects.
The following quote is a summary of a private vs public
cloud discussion.
"So which is right for you? Ultimately, it all boils down
to control. A large company may choose a private cloud,
while a smaller business might choose a public cloud."
https://www.expedient.com/blog/private-vs-public-cloud-whats-difference/
I agree with that much. A smaller company is more likely
to decide it can't afford a private cloud. That's fine with me.
In my opinion the people in smaller companies tend to be more
ethical and friendlier than those working in bigger companies.
I'm glad Andrei Alexandrescu left Facebook behind....
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - So far G-d has helped us.
http://webEbenezer.net
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
woodb...@gmail.com
Aug 8, 2016, 6:23:11 PM8/8/16
to
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 6:53:23 AM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 2:14:13 AM UTC-4, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This song talks about being protected in the eye
> > of the storm.
> >
> This song talks about what happens to Middleware writers who don't thinks it's
> necessary to follow de facto standards for serialization/deserialization.
What standards are you talking about?
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 2:14:13 AM UTC-4, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This song talks about being protected in the eye
> > of the storm.
> >
> This song talks about what happens to Middleware writers who don't thinks it's
> necessary to follow de facto standards for serialization/deserialization.
Daniel
Aug 8, 2016, 7:05:25 PM8/8/16
to
But seriously, for binary serialization, why would you want to use anything
other than Protocol Buffers?
Best regards,
Daniel
Ian Collins
Aug 9, 2016, 1:36:00 AM8/9/16
to
On 08/ 9/16 10:01 AM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:27:18 AM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
>>
>> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
>> working with.
>>
>
> If I understand correctly, you mean a public cloud
> wouldn't be acceptable for your projects.
Pretty much.
> On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:27:18 AM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
>>
>> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
>> working with.
>>
>
> If I understand correctly, you mean a public cloud
> wouldn't be acceptable for your projects.
The build server all run inside the firewall with no internet access.
Then there's the issue of versioning the tools (protobuf for example)
with the code so the same tools are used to build legacy, supported, builds.
--
Ian
Scott Lurndal
Aug 9, 2016, 8:51:41 AM8/9/16
to
woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:27:18 AM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
>>
>> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
>> working with.
>>
>
>If I understand correctly, you mean a public cloud
>wouldn't be acceptable for your projects.
To build our code, we must have _all_ tools required available
>On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:27:18 AM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
>>
>> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
>> working with.
>>
>
>If I understand correctly, you mean a public cloud
>wouldn't be acceptable for your projects.
internally - we could _never_ farm out code out to some third-party
service - it might not be there next week.
woodb...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2016, 2:51:01 PM8/10/16
to
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 12:36:00 AM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 08/ 9/16 10:01 AM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:27:18 AM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
> >> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
> >>
> >> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
> >> working with.
> >>
> >
> > If I understand correctly, you mean a public cloud
> > wouldn't be acceptable for your projects.
>
> Pretty much.
>
> The build server all run inside the firewall with no internet access.
>
"Will everything go to public infrastructure clouds?
> On 08/ 9/16 10:01 AM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 1:27:18 AM UTC-5, Ian Collins wrote:
> >> On 08/ 8/16 05:42 PM, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> The CMW, unlike Protocol Buffers, is an on line code generator.
> >>
> >> Which would prevent it's use on any of the projects I'm currently
> >> working with.
> >>
> >
> > If I understand correctly, you mean a public cloud
> > wouldn't be acceptable for your projects.
>
> Pretty much.
>
> The build server all run inside the firewall with no internet access.
>
No. There will be niches."
http://limnthis.typepad.com/limn_this/2015/03/public-vs-private-cloud-price-isnt-enough.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/the-enterprise-cloud/private-vs-public-cloud-why-the-supposed-debate-is-really-no-debate-at-all/
0 new messages