[erlang-questions] XOP - final proof that UBF is the correct approach

Scott Lystig Fritchie fritchie@REDACTED
Thu Jul 16 20:15:05 CEST 2009

Steve Davis <steven.charles.davis@REDACTED> wrote:

sd> I'm trying to get a foothold into what kind of application would
sd> encourage developers to favor UBF over XML.

Steve, When I was at the Erlang Factory in Palo Alto back in April,
whenever I'd mentioned that I'd been working on new UBF code, the
universal reaction was, "I thought that code was dead."  Nope, it's
baaaaack....  :-)

Joe Norton, one of my colleagues in Tokyo has done a lot of work to
patch some bugs and add a bunch of type extensions and extra
documentation to Joe Armstrong's original UBF code and support for other
transport protocols (including JSON over a plain socket and JSON-RPC).
I don't recall when our latest push to Github was, but it was probably
long enough ago that at least one bugfix is missing.

We're working on integrating UBF contracts with automatic QuickCheck
generator creation.  Together with Anders Nygren's ABNF compiler (also
at Github), we've been starting to put together a nifty toolchain.  The
QC stuff isn't available at Github yet, but it will be, as soon as The
Day Job gives us enough time to breathe.


Wow, Github's search doodad says that there's another set of UBF code
hosted there.  ... Oh, that's Steve's repository!  It would be good to
combine forces to thwart the forces of XML.


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list