[standards-jig] JNG Ramblings.

Adam Theo theo at theoretic.com
Fri Aug 9 03:57:44 UTC 2002

Mike Lin wrote:
>>I second Matthias Wimmer's -1 to binary wire protocol. I know it would 
>>make things increadibly easy for the server and programs, but difficult 
>>for developers and admins.
> I now have something that for the past year has been severely lacking in
> all these discussions: code.
> (snip)
> Anyway, this is a question over which reasonable people can disagree. I
> have thought for a long time, and I've become more convinced by
> implementing it, that by using a binary protocol for framing we can get
> enormous benefits for acceptable cost.

OK, I still don't like the idea of a binary wire protocol really 
(although I might be persuaded by some convincing arguments, I'm largely 
unlearned about this issue), I'm glad to see you're implimenting your 
ideas. It will give all of us a better idea of what is feasible and what 
is not. Thanks, Mike!

     /\  Adam Theo, Age 23, Tallahassee FL USA
    //\\   Email & Jabber: theo at theoretic.com
   //  \\  Pager: (850) 709 7738
//  ||  \\  Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
     ||         "Building Ideas by Bringing them Together"
     ||      Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
     ||         "The Next Generation Communications Protocol"
     ||  "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American Buddhist"

More information about the Standards mailing list