3 ms·
It's hard to express quite how much it sucks, but many people have tried and failed to come up with something better. Erm, ZeroMQ? nanomsg? HTTP?
by angersock 12y ago
It's hard to express quite how much it sucks, but many people have tried and failed to come up with something better.
Erm, ZeroMQ? nanomsg? HTTP?
- lmm 12y ago> ZeroMQ? nanomsg? Still oriented towards streams of bytes, no? Frankly I don't trust the implementation based on some of the blog posts, but even if I did, the part of the problem they solve (exactly-once delivery) is one I prefer to solve in other ways. > HTTP? Can work, but still ultimately not structured enough; it's hard to evolve a HTTP API in a verifiably compatible way, and you usually end up having to maintain some kind of schema or IDL and explicit conversion code - at which point Thrift provides a standardized way of doing it.
- angersock 12y agoAll of those options provide message-centered data flows. You have to define the message format--JSON, BSON (lol), or even protobuff would work fine. Just because you refuse to use well-established tools doesn't mean they aren't there.
- lmm 12y agoThe serialization part - JSON, BSON or protobuf - is the part I'm complaining about. I have plenty of perfectly good ways to copy a packet of bytes from A to B. I want something that offers the safety guarantees of protobuf with a "simple case" that's as easy as e.g. Jackson. And I want something that can send functions, not just inert structs.