Hello Michael ! In my project I tried to use (1), but later changed to 2-nd approach. And now I more happy ) (2) simplier to log and debug especially 32/64 bit issues. In my project there is no any significant lack of performance.
Regards Eugene Pasternak 2015-06-19 20:00 GMT+06:00 Michael Haberler <mai...@mah.priv.at>: > so far we are using protobuf for serialization, with a single protobuf > message being the supertype and container of all possible other message > contents > > we are switching to tagging - each frame has a 32bit-sized tag which > encodes message type *), as well as message encoding > > so we have two options: > > (1) just prefix each message (whatever type/encoding) with the tag, in a > single frame > (2) prepend a 4-byte frame with the tag, which says how to interpret the > following frame > > > (2) would be easier to autodetect for backwards compatibility, at the cost > of extra ZMTP framing overhead > (1) would need a heuristic test which I dislike > > any suggestions one way or the other? > are there any significant runtime performance implications of using (2)? > > thanks, > > - Michael > > > > > *) since protobuf lacks a message type ID, Petteri Aimonen and me came up > with the msgid option in the .proto spec, see > https://github.com/nanopb/nanopb/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=msgid > this could be useful for other protobuf users as message type ID's are a > recurring question > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > -- Пастернак Евгений Анатольевич, 8-962-033-95-11
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
