[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding
Hey, guys -
Cap'n Proto is supported by C++, Erlang, _javascript_, Python, Rust, C, C#, Go, Java, Lua, OCaml, and Ruby [0]. I think that pretty well covers the landscape, unless someone out there is working in Haskell or Lisp?!
The biggest advantages I see with Cap'n Proto have nothing to do with performance.
0) The ability to evolve a spec without breaking backwards-compatibility [1]. 1) The fact that you get input validation and parsing for free [2].
[0]: https://capnproto.org/otherlang.html [1]: https://capnproto.org/language.html#evolving-your-protocol [2]: https://capnproto.org/index.html
Cheers,
Trey
--
Trey Darley
Senior Security Engineer
Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
www.soltra.com
From: cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Wunder, John A. <jwunder@mitre.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 13:56 To: Jordan, Bret; Terry MacDonald Cc: Eric Burger; cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding I agree with Bret: one binding to rule them all, one binding to…bind…them.
I also agree that the single binding should be JSON. I think people will have huge problems implementing a binary protocol across a variety of languages and platforms. We would have to consider language/library support, compatibility between different
libraries, and all the other challenges of a binary protocol.
If at some point volume surpasses what we can do in JSON that would be a good time to counter my first statement and add a binary protocol *for only those use cases* and continue to use JSON for other use cases. In other words, we might add another binding
but each use case would only have a single supported binding.
John
From: <cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Jordan, Bret"
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:36 AM To: Terry MacDonald Cc: Eric Burger, "cti-stix@lists.oasis-open.org" Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding I am not against a binary version. I do have concerns about ease of use with binary. I also have concerns with good solid support for handhelds.
But that discussion aside, I think we both agree on "not XML" and "only one way to do it".
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 64
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]