[erlang-questions] fyi: Google protocol buffers
john s wolter
Wed Jul 9 20:04:33 CEST 2008
I see many protocols developed that are reinventions of "committee"
> protocols that are "simpler" because they throw away a bunch of things
> that only some people in the committee wanted.
Still, somehow the Internet muddles ahead.
Where ASN.1, Google's proto, and XML are all presentation-layer
> specifications, BEEP is a session-layer specification.
I was thinking in a broad sense of getting my application working. As you
mention the others are presentation-layers.
Sadly, there's far more RESTful interface design than actual REST
> interface design. You lose much of the ability to use existing libraries
> and such when your design is only RESTful instead of actually being REST.
> Name three companies publishing "RESTful" services that all use the same
> authentication mechanism, for example. :-)
I've read the statements but have yet to try a REST[ful] application. I
can see some page mashups usage but have yet to see an web services
application that gets me interested. The URI router also has overhead.
I see you are trying to contrast RESTful and REST. Is there more you might
say to highlight the difference between the two terms from your point of
> BEEP covers what a network messaging protocol needs to cover.
> Dr. Rose described it as "getting all that stuff out of the way so your
> IETF meeting doesn't spend 90% of the time on the stuff that's the same
> in every protocol and 10% of the time on the stuff specific to your
Good point about committees.
John S. Wolter President
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions