-
From: Edward Capriolo
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:58 PM
To: user@thrift.apache.org
Subject: Re: Thrift vs. Protocol Buffers
"Last I looked at protobuf it was just a framework for serialization, and
the rest was left to the reader."
Many are using this now: Protobuf is often pared
;
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 1:04 PM, James Hanley <jhan...@dgtlrift.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A number of years back, Diwaker Gupta published a great article
> > "Thrift vs. Protocol Buffers" which eventually moved to
> > https://old.floatingsun.net/articles/thr
com> wrote:
> A number of years back, Diwaker Gupta published a great article
> "Thrift vs. Protocol Buffers" which eventually moved to
> https://old.floatingsun.net/articles/thrift-vs-protocol-buffers/index.html
> and then later another article titled "Thrift: The
A number of years back, Diwaker Gupta published a great article
"Thrift vs. Protocol Buffers" which eventually moved to
https://old.floatingsun.net/articles/thrift-vs-protocol-buffers/index.html
and then later another article titled "Thrift: The Missing Guide&qu
+1 to all Mark said.
The reason why we're using Thrift is we're building a loosely-coupled
system on a single motherboard (sort of), and the idea of embedding 'n'
copies of an HTTP server is bad. There are times when RPC is good, and
when you want a fast and lightweight system with reasonable
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Mark Slee ms...@fb.com wrote:
(Sorry for the really slow response, I meant to respond to this weeks ago,
but got lost in the mailbox...)
no problem. I have mailbox issues too. I think that is a healthy sign.
2) I'd replace the networking code for Java with
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Will Pierce jwi...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't want to start a flamewar, but the fact is that JSON is the new XML
and is frequently treated AS THOUGH it is a self-describing protocol.
from my point of view, the main difference between JSON and XML is
that with XML
2011/5/6 David Reiss dre...@fb.com:
FWIW, you should not need lex or yacc to build the thrift compiler from
a release tarball, only to do development on it.
the point I was trying to make was that choosing C++ because of
dependency X might have seemed like a natural choice, although it
doesn't
My comments are inline...
2011/5/5 Bjørn Borud bbo...@gmail.com
1) re-do the parser using Antlr and do the compiler in Java or Python.
a Python runtime is more common and probably the most portable
alternative, but [ ... ]
Interestingly, I've had similar thoughts, but for different
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Dmitriy Kargapolov
dmitriy.kargapo...@gmail.com wrote:
Development and management are not organized well in Thrift project - I
submitted a bug and a patch (!) on 3/21/11 and its still even not assigned
(!!).
Sometimes it's worth pointing it out when things get
2011/5/4 Bjørn Borud bbo...@gmail.com:
there is another issue that few people touch on when comparing the
two, but which is important in practice: the Thrift compiler is not
very portable, in the sense that it can quite obviously be built on
different operating systems, but you can only
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Dmitriy Kargapolov
dmitriy.kargapo...@gmail.com
Development and management are not organized well in Thrift project - I
submitted a bug and a patch (!) on 3/21/11 and its still even not assigned
(!!).
As to your conclusion that PB is better designed - how in
12 matches
Mail list logo
