On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Vic Devin <vfn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your quick answers. > > Maybe my point was not so clearly conveyed. What I mean is not to say > which technology is better, CORBA, ASN.1, or Protobuf. > What I mean is that they all try to solve, leaving aside all tech details, > the same basic problem, i.e. remote communication between software entities. > We should be referring to this concept in a more standard way, naming it > in a standard way. > What's the standard that defines remote communication? Who defines the standard and why should we follow?
> > To make the comparison with the wheel again, we dont call it anything else > then "wheel" because the concept is a given and widely and universally > understood. > Can you imagine the 1st cave men who first invented it, one would make it > wooden and call it "Spinner", another make it marble and call it "Stonner" > and another "Crasher". > The poor cave men still didnt make the process of abstracting the concept > to simply "wheel", away from any particular "implementation details". > > As I see it the progress happens also because of finding these universal > abstractions, and Protobuf dont need to say that reinvented the way of > making 2 remote module able to communicate with each other, its simply a > different (better) implementation of the same (abstract) concept. > > > On Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:24:30 AM UTC+2, Oliver wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Vic Devin <vfn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This thread seems to be a bit old but anyway this topic became suddenly >>> important for me since I start to hear the "Protobuf" new magic word. >>> >>> Now I was a bit surprised to discover that it is actually the same idea >>> as CORBA! >>> >> >> No it's not - protobuf can be used to build a RPC mechanism, but there >> are many other things that you can use protobuf for that you can't use >> CORBA for. >> >> For example, I've used it to write persistent EDRs to a file in a >> structured format, and to stream network messages where there's no simple >> request/response pairing. >> >> The analogy with ASN.1 is a better one (and see my previous comments on >> that) >> >> Oliver >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Protocol Buffers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
