I don't really have a stake in the design of a protobuf-based RPC format. However, I'd like to point out that the design philosophy we tend to prefer at Google is to keep each layer of the system as simple as possible, and implement orthogonal features using separate layers. Authentication is a great example of something that I would not want to make part of an RPC protocol itself, but rather implement as a layer under it, similar to the way HTTP can operate over SSL. If you keep the system separate in this way, it's much easier for people to avoid the overhead of features they don't need, find alternative ways of implementing individual features, and to reuse code in general. Just my opinion.
2008/10/27 Paul P. Komkoff Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
