Ulf Wiger (TN/EAB)
Fri Jan 16 11:39:57 CET 2009
Steve Davis skrev:
> So I'm wondering...
> * Does anybody have experience of using UBF?
I used it in the "CyberAthletics" project, which
for various reasons never took off (the intended
sponsors didn't have any money/interest when I had the
time/motivation, and vice versa).
Working with UBF was very nice. We had a Java client
and an Erlang server, and described the protocol in
UBF. I tested the server using an Erlang test client,
and the UBF contract checker was very quick to point
out misuse of the protocol.
I also wrote a small contract-to-hrl generator, so
that I could specify the messages in UBF and refer
to the resulting records in the code. This allowed
me to write callbacks that simply matched on the
record pattern, since I could trust that UBF had
both parsed the data for me, and verified that the
types and context were ok.
> * Was this experience of using UBF 100% positive?
No. Few experiences have been. (:
- UBF wasn't actively maintained, so I had my own
set of patches.
- UBF doesn't support much in terms of asynchronous
- While the decoder supports "semantic tags", the
encoder provides no facility for using them.
> * Can anyone think of any downside to using UBF over
> XML/WSDL (apart from the obvious cultural ones)?
There are of course benefits of XML, such as that there's
a wealth of tools and lots of expertise to draw from.
Whether the pain of using (esp) WSDL is worth these
benefits, probably depends on whom you ask.
More information about the erlang-questions