[erlang-questions] fyi: Google protocol buffers

john s wolter johnswolter@REDACTED
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
viewing this.

> 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
> meeting."

Good  point about committees.

John S. Wolter President
Wolter Works
Desk 1-734-665-1263
Cell: 1-734-904-8433
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20080709/741f21ae/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list