What I find really interesting is the TNetString approach Mongrel2 is
using instead of json.
Marten
Am 31.03.2012 03:23, schrieb Steven McCoy:
Interesting tidbit from a YouTube presentation,
*Serialization formats* - no matter which one you use, they are all
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, MinRK benjami...@gmail.com wrote:
Does adding to the API/ABI really make sense at this late point in the 2.1.x
series? This will be the first such change since the first stable 2.1
release, as far as I know.
True, but there seems nothing wrong with improving
i am wedded to 2.1.x for the forseeable future.
all i need is backwards compatible.
On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:00 PM, MinRK benjami...@gmail.com wrote:
Does adding to the API/ABI really make sense at this late point in the 2.1.x
series?
The only issue with BSON is that it's not entirely generic---the spec
has types that are specific to MongoDB (like DBPointer, stuff to ship
JavaScript code with context, etc.).
This comes from my experience implementing BSON in C. And, yes, I'd
believe it could be fast (maybe not with
What type of hardware do they have (just curious)?
Also, what type of 0MQ sockets are seeing this throughput (is this
mostly pub-sub)?
I'm also curious, and wanted to know a bit more about the numbers you posted :-)
--
Wolf
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Christian Martinez
How's BSON compare to msgpack? I've started using that in places.
___
zeromq-dev mailing list
zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org
http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Rick Olson technowee...@gmail.com wrote:
How's BSON compare to msgpack? I've started using that in places.
In my mind, it seems like the performance of BSON and msgpack could be
comparable.
msgpack's specification is more generic than BSON's (no
On 31 March 2012 17:33, Rick Olson technowee...@gmail.com wrote:
How's BSON compare to msgpack? I've started using that in places.
Not to dissuade from MsgPack having a more convenient API to use,
but MsgPack is surprisingly worse than Protocol Buffers. Despite their
website claims,
I think it's more difficult to draw comparisons when one factors in the
binding ecosystem as well - a large part of the community use libzmq
through some higher level binding. Most serialization wrappers tend to
create additional heap cruft that stresses the GC in some languages. Here's
an
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Steven McCoy steven.mc...@miru.hk wrote:
On 31 March 2012 17:33, Rick Olson technowee...@gmail.com wrote:
How's BSON compare to msgpack? I've started using that in places.
Not to dissuade from MsgPack having a more convenient API to use,
but MsgPack is
I also think the topic should perhaps be taken off the list since libzmq
does not impose message structure, BUT it's also important to keep tabs on
this ( recommendations or real production feedback etc. ) somewhere on the
wiki or docs for reference.
True, although every now and then
Updated the FAQ to reflect the fact that choice of serialization
format/library isn't simple, and there are multiple solutions.
If you want to see the diff/what I added (feel free to add more),
check the history and compare revisions 124 and 125:
http://www.zeromq.org/area:faq
--
Wolf
On Sat,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Wolfgang Richter w...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
I think the documentation references ProtoBufs (FAQ does:
http://www.zeromq.org/area:faq), maybe we should add a list of
alternatives for people to look at (this is at least interesting to
some in the community)?
Yes,
ASN.1/BER/DER?
*ducks*
On Saturday, March 31, 2012 04:42:58 PM Pieter Hintjens wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Wolfgang Richter w...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
I think the documentation references ProtoBufs (FAQ does:
http://www.zeromq.org/area:faq), maybe we should add a list of
14 matches
Mail list logo
