On 26 окт, 02:53, Alan Kligman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't had much to add recently. Protobuf-rpc is based heavily on > json-rpc, so there's really nothing new behind it. It works well for > my own use and is generic enough to probably work well for most other > people. > > Is there a great deal of interest in devising a standard rpc protocol > definition?
Yes it is. Since everything is trying to design its own RPC format, running into the same flaws as everyone else. For example, I haven't seen (in protobuf-rpc neither in protorcp) a single word about authentification. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
