Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Good IPC Message Protocols?

by hobbs (Monk)
on Jan 30, 2009 at 23:48 UTC ( #740352=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Good IPC Message Protocols?
in thread Good IPC Message Protocols?

I think you missed the part where the keys and values are base64'd as part of the serialization. Which actually increases the things that can be transmitted easily, and improves robustness because the payload can't be confused with the framing.

So while I agree with the principle of not reinventing wheels, especially when security is on the line, pileofrogs isn't as misguided as all that.


Comment on Re^2: Good IPC Message Protocols?
Re^3: Good IPC Message Protocols?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Jan 31, 2009 at 00:49 UTC

    Now you point it out, you're right++.

    I got hung up on the "64 characters" bit and completely forgot that the input to the encoding process can contain any byte values.

    That said, I still much prefer length prefixing (via pack 'n/a*' etc.) which also allows the data packet to contain all byte values, but has the added advantages of:

    • 4(or 2 or 1)-bytes/per packet transmission overhead rather than 37%.
    • Negligible encoding/decoding overhead.
    • The ability to read for just what is required rather than rely on buffering and buffer management.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://740352]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-07-22 11:19 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (110 votes), past polls