[erlang-questions] Newbie training project proposal
Sat Sep 15 01:54:17 CEST 2007
On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:29 AM, Joe Armstrong wrote:
> I'll start with a little rant about the architecture of STOMP :-)
Ooo, boy, this will be fun...
> <flame on>
> Do protocol designers turn off their brains when they design
Nope, I think everyone has good intentions at least.
> I see a lot of the following:
> - text protocols with are "easy" to understand and parse
depends on the client, if it is telnet then text is in fact much
easier. It depends on the goal.
> (false - most text protocols are inadequately specified)
What is inadequately specified?
I am serious, I know the spec plays loosey-goosey with some areas. We
rely on implementors to let us know where the gaps are. It got a
"1.0" only because a lot of folks actually use it and no one
implementing had complained in a while :-)
> - XML protocols
> (crazy - did anybody think how long it would take to parse this
> The two most obvious methods for building protocols are:
> - define a packed bit-byte-word structure appropriate to you needs
Not appropriate when a design goal is that it can be done by hand
over telnet. A key consumer of stomp is a sysadmin at 3am trying to
figure out why somethign went wrong. IN that case text format
protocols are massively valuable. They are also massively less
efficient, which is why I would generally suggest stomp as a
transport option on a system and an optimized packed binary transport
I think there are glaring crap points in stomp, but the decision to
be text-oriented is *not* of them :-)
-Brian (who wrote the initial stomp spec because he was tired of not
being able to access binary protocols easily).
More information about the erlang-questions