King JSON

Mar. 18th, 2010 11:38 am
juan_gandhi: (Default)
[personal profile] juan_gandhi
Seems like we here are agreeing to switch from our fixed binary data packet format to JSON. Can't believe my eyes.

Date: 2010-03-18 06:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ivan-gandhi.livejournal.com
Just yesterday we discussed adding optional nvpairs to the tail of the packet; I did not think I could sell JSON to the guys. Now kaboom, turns out there are just 3 stakeholders, and we all have the same opinion. Fuck the others.
Edited Date: 2010-03-18 06:55 pm (UTC)

Date: 2010-03-18 07:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] itman.livejournal.com
Well, if efficiency is the issue, you could have switched to Google protocols. Or to whatever else similar and open source.

Date: 2010-03-18 07:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ivan-gandhi.livejournal.com
Having had an experience with protocol buffers... they do have an advantage that they are multi-language. What I still don't like there is their Java implementation... rather, Java classes design. One bad bug was fixed, but the architecture still sucks.

Date: 2010-03-18 08:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] itman.livejournal.com
Ok. I think most designs have flaws.

Profile

juan_gandhi: (Default)
Juan-Carlos Gandhi

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    1 2 3
456 7 8 9 10
11 121314151617
181920 21 222324
25 262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 27th, 2025 11:38 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios