Thought this would be interesting, though it didn't appear to be so until I followed the link. Very compelling reasons to consider compact binary encodings over verbose text. Binary appears to be both smaller and faster to process for these test cases.
Phil ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:32:44 -0600 From: Paul Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Megaco] HOW to get package name Brian, I agree with what you say about the number of binary versus text Megaco implementations, but--since you brought it up first--I disagree with your assessment of binary-versus-text in general and specifically Megaco BER vs text. Check out this recent comparison: http://www.asn1.org/benchmark/benchmark1.htm Paul Long ipDialog, Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Rosen, Brian > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:15 AM > To: 'Madhu Babu Brahmanapally'; 'vidya g' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: SPAM: Re: RE: [Megaco] HOW to get package name > > > And please remember that most Megaco implementations are text only, > with a very small number both text and binary, and none that I know > of that are binary only. Making a binary-only implementation might > lead you into a very small number of compatible implementations. > > Megaco binary implementations have been shown to be slower and > to produce larger messages than text implementations. > > Brian
