Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
Sorry for the delayed responsemy ISP's spam filter suddenly decided that JUG discussions were spam (whereas, previously, they were not).sometimes I hate computers. At 09:57 AM 7/14/2008, you wrote: Yeah, we have a huge case of NIH syndrome. This isn't the half of it, trust me. :) OTOH, some of the systems we've built ourselves have been blockbuster hits that enable much of what you know as Google today. Yep, 'gotta admit that Google software has inspired a lot of projects out there and raised the bar. At a previous job, Gov't customers used to complain about the UI we delivered under a long-term, fixed contract. I think that it had been initially acceptable but, after using fancier stuff (like Google Maps) their expectations were raised considerably. In response to your comment about backward compatibility, Protocol Buffers are actually explicitly designed so that you can add fields and whatnot and still be able to read in records stored in the old format. Cool, perhaps I'll have to take a closer look at them if I have a need for a binary wire protocol. Thanks Nick, regards, -tom Nick On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Thomas Hicks wrote: At 03:15 PM 7/10/2008, Nick wrote: This is pretty cool: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers-googles-data.html Protocol buffers are *the* lingua franca for RPCs, structured data storage, and just about any data sharing you can think of at Google. If you're building a distributed system and want to pass around messages in something other (faster) than Xml, you should check out protocol buffers. Nick Interesting but why didn't you guys just use CORBA and get it over with? :) From the Google Protocol Buffer documentation: OK, I know what you're thinking: Yet another IDL? Yes, you could call it that. But, IDLs in general have earned a reputation for being hopelessly complicated. Complexity sounds like a strawman here.the major problem with IDLs is that they are built upon a shared definition, which requires all parties to update and recompile when the definition changes. And once you recompile, you've lost the ability of the system to handle the old message format (so versioning is very difficult unless you plan for it from the beginning). Of course, these problems are ameliorated when 1) the IDL is for internal use only and 2) you control both ends of the conversation. I also wonder why Google didn't just use an existing protocol like Hessian: http://caucho.com/products/hessian.xtp Perhaps a case of NIH syndrome? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_syndrome) regards, -tom
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source (resend)
At 03:15 PM 7/10/2008, Nick wrote: This is pretty cool: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers-googles-data.html Protocol buffers are *the* lingua franca for RPCs, structured data storage, and just about any data sharing you can think of at Google. If you're building a distributed system and want to pass around messages in something other (faster) than Xml, you should check out protocol buffers. Nick Interesting but why didn't you guys just use CORBA and get it over with? :) From the Google Protocol Buffer documentation: OK, I know what you're thinking: Yet another IDL? Yes, you could call it that. But, IDLs in general have earned a reputation for being hopelessly complicated. Complexity sounds like a strawman here.the major problem with IDLs is that they are built upon a shared definition, which requires all parties to update and recompile when the definition changes. And once you recompile, you've lost the ability of the system to handle the old message format (so versioning is very difficult unless you plan for it from the beginning). Of course, these problems are ameliorated when 1) the IDL is for internal use only and 2) you control both ends of the conversation. I also wonder why Google didn't just use an existing protocol like Hessian: http://caucho.com/products/hessian.xtp Perhaps a case of NIH syndrome? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_syndrome) regards, -tom
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
At 03:15 PM 7/10/2008, Nick wrote: This is pretty cool: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers-googles-data.html Protocol buffers are *the* lingua franca for RPCs, structured data storage, and just about any data sharing you can think of at Google. If you're building a distributed system and want to pass around messages in something other (faster) than Xml, you should check out protocol buffers. Nick Interesting but why didn't you guys just use CORBA and get it over with? :) From the Google Protocol Buffer documentation: OK, I know what you're thinking: Yet another IDL? Yes, you could call it that. But, IDLs in general have earned a reputation for being hopelessly complicated. Complexity sounds like a strawman here.the major problem with IDLs is that they are built upon a shared definition, which requires all parties to update and recompile when the definition changes. And once you recompile, you've lost the ability of the system to handle the old message format (so versioning is very difficult unless you plan for it from the beginning). Of course, these problems are ameliorated when 1) the IDL is for internal use only and 2) you control both ends of the conversation. I also wonder why Google didn't just use an existing protocol like Hessian: http://caucho.com/products/hessian.xtp Perhaps a case of NIH syndrome? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_syndrome) regards, -tom
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
Yeah, we have a huge case of NIH syndrome. This isn't the half of it, trust me. :) OTOH, some of the systems we've built ourselves have been blockbuster hits that enable much of what you know as Google today. In response to your comment about backward compatibility, Protocol Buffers are actually explicitly designed so that you can add fields and whatnot and still be able to read in records stored in the old format. Nick On Jul 14, 2008, at 9:27 AM, Thomas Hicks wrote: At 03:15 PM 7/10/2008, Nick wrote: This is pretty cool: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers-googles-data.html Protocol buffers are *the* lingua franca for RPCs, structured data storage, and just about any data sharing you can think of at Google. If you're building a distributed system and want to pass around messages in something other (faster) than Xml, you should check out protocol buffers. Nick Interesting but why didn't you guys just use CORBA and get it over with? :) From the Google Protocol Buffer documentation: OK, I know what you're thinking: Yet another IDL? Yes, you could call it that. But, IDLs in general have earned a reputation for being hopelessly complicated. Complexity sounds like a strawman here.the major problem with IDLs is that they are built upon a shared definition, which requires all parties to update and recompile when the definition changes. And once you recompile, you've lost the ability of the system to handle the old message format (so versioning is very difficult unless you plan for it from the beginning). Of course, these problems are ameliorated when 1) the IDL is for internal use only and 2) you control both ends of the conversation. I also wonder why Google didn't just use an existing protocol like Hessian: http://caucho.com/products/hessian.xtp Perhaps a case of NIH syndrome? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_syndrome) regards, -tom
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
At 09:53 PM 7/10/2008, Chad wrote: These kids and their new-fangled protocols. XML was good enough for my grandfather, and it's good enough for me! Why, we had to make our angle brackets out of two sticks and baling wire... I took a look at that link but the documentation seems incomplete -- I didn't see anything about specifying the number of stop bits. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:08 AM, William H. Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I took a look at that link but the documentation seems incomplete -- I didn't see anything about specifying the number of stop bits. What was it Brian said about Java being the new Assembly? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
Stop bits? On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:08 AM, William H. Mitchell wrote: At 09:53 PM 7/10/2008, Chad wrote: These kids and their new-fangled protocols. XML was good enough for my grandfather, and it's good enough for me! Why, we had to make our angle brackets out of two sticks and baling wire... I took a look at that link but the documentation seems incomplete -- I didn't see anything about specifying the number of stop bits. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
old skewl serial processing. On Jul 11, 2008, at 8:34 AM, nlesiecki wrote: Stop bits? On Jul 11, 2008, at 1:08 AM, William H. Mitchell wrote: At 09:53 PM 7/10/2008, Chad wrote: These kids and their new-fangled protocols. XML was good enough for my grandfather, and it's good enough for me! Why, we had to make our angle brackets out of two sticks and baling wire... I took a look at that link but the documentation seems incomplete -- I didn't see anything about specifying the number of stop bits. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
Very cool Nick, thanks for sharing! -warner On Jul 10, 2008, at 3:15 PM, nlesiecki wrote: This is pretty cool: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers- googles-data.html Protocol buffers are *the* lingua franca for RPCs, structured data storage, and just about any data sharing you can think of at Google. If you're building a distributed system and want to pass around messages in something other (faster) than Xml, you should check out protocol buffers. Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Warner Onstine - Programmer/Author New book on Tapestry 4! Tapestry 101 available at http://sourcebeat.com/books/tapestrylive.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://warneronstine.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [jug-discussion] Google's Wire Format Goes Open Source
These kids and their new-fangled protocols. XML was good enough for my grandfather, and it's good enough for me! Why, we had to make our angle brackets out of two sticks and baling wire... On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Warner Onstine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very cool Nick, thanks for sharing! -warner On Jul 10, 2008, at 3:15 PM, nlesiecki wrote: This is pretty cool: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers-googles-data.html Protocol buffers are *the* lingua franca for RPCs, structured data storage, and just about any data sharing you can think of at Google. If you're building a distributed system and want to pass around messages in something other (faster) than Xml, you should check out protocol buffers. Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Warner Onstine - Programmer/Author New book on Tapestry 4! Tapestry 101 available at http://sourcebeat.com/books/tapestrylive.html [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://warneronstine.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
