There is also the other end of the spectrum, where I am at. With a
large Hadoop cluster and terabytes of data, the efficient storage and
zippy parsing of protobufs is a huge deal.

In many ways, protobufs allow you do do what XML promised, but much
more efficiently. The other way to look at them is they are ASN.1
reduced to the simplest usefull feature set.

--Chris

On Jul 23, 4:43 pm, Timothy Parez <timothypa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also note,
>
> while your computer might have 4 cores running at 2.5Ghz the hardware I'm
> talking about
> has 1 core, runs at 100Mhz and that's it... processing XML on devices like
> that... a real pain in the ...
>
> But I have to admit, when I write computer to computer software, I go REST
> or SOAP all the way
>
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Timothy Parez <timothypa...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > The reason we use it is because we don't just develop software but also
> > hardware solutions.
> > Hardware solutions which are connected through GPRS or even RS232
> > connections.
>
> > GPRS is slow and in most cases you pay for the amount of data your send,
> > so we have to keep the packages as small as  possible.
>
> > RS232 doesn't work well with large packets, so again size is very
> > important.
>
> > Web Services, REST, SOAP, ... they are all very verbose... to
> > expensive/large for our needs.
>
> > If you need data to be as small as possible, protocol buffers are a good
> > option.
>
> > Timothy
>
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Tim Acheson <tim.ache...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> I generally create web services using WCF or ASP.NET MVC. I don't get
> >> the point of "Protocol Buffers". Am I missing something?
>
> >> Out of the box, WCF web services and ASP.NET MVC actions serialise my
> >> objects to JSON or XML, using the serialisation libraries provided by
> >> the framework. I don't need to do anything to achieve "encoding
> >> structured data in an efficient yet extensible format" -- I just
> >> define my objects as normal and the .NET framework does everything for
> >> me.
>
> >> I don't need to write any code to do the serialisation, either. I just
> >> define the return type of the web method in my WCF project, or define
> >> an ASP.NET MVC Action that returns the object. The framework does the
> >> rest.
>
> >> Also, I rarely come accross a web service that returns anything other
> >> than strings, 32-bit integers and booleans. If I did, I'd probably
> >> question the architecture.
>
> >> Perhaps somebody could explain why I would want or need to use
> >> Protocol Buffers?
>
> >> Thanks! :)
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c
> >>  om>
> >> .
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

Reply via email to