On 12/09/2009 09:12 PM, Kenton Varda wrote: > Coincidentally, last weekend I started working on an open source > protobuf-based RPC system. Currently I am defining a socket-level > protocol, but I also intend to support an HTTP-level protocol with > optional JSON encoding to allow calls from Javascript. I stuck some > totally undocumented code here:
Thanks. My intention of having it over http is that it can communicate with other languages. I'd be good if we can synchronize our protocols. I need to make some changes based on what you said on another thread, and then I'll make my java basic server code available. > http://pbcap.googlecode.com > > But some coworkers pointed out that the name is confusingly similar to > "pcap", so I'm planning to change it. > > Currently this is not an official Google project; I'm working on it in > my spare time. > > 2009/12/9 Romain François <francoisrom...@free.fr > <mailto:francoisrom...@free.fr>> > > A request looks like this : > > ----------------------------------------------------- > POST /{service full name}/{method name} HTTP/1.0 > > > I would recommend against putting the service type name in the URL. > This makes it impossible to export two services of the same type. > Instead, you should allow the application to register services under > any name it chooses. Fair enough. Maybe adding some protobuf specific headers : ProtobufService: {service full name} ProtobufMethod: {method full name} or encode it as parameters of the url as you said. > I'd also suggest making the method name be part of the query, like: > > POST /someservice?method={method name} > > This may be a matter of taste, but I feel like a service object should > be a single HTTP "resource", rather than have each method be a separate > resource. > > Connection: close > > > Why not allow pipelining? this was simpler to do a one shot service call, but indeed why not. > Content-Length: {length of the serialized message} > > {raw bytes of the serialized message} > ----------------------------------------------------- > > And a successful response looks like this: > > ----------------------------------------------------- > HTTP/1.1 200 OK > Content-length: {length of the serialized response} > > {raw bytes of the serialized response} > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Since this is very early in this, I wondered if others would have views > on this. > > http is quite verbose for sending protobuf message around, but it is > likely to be implemented for a lot of languages. > > Regards, > > Romain -- Romain Francois Professional R Enthusiast +33(0) 6 28 91 30 30 http://romainfrancois.blog.free.fr |- http://tr.im/Gq7i : ohloh |- http://tr.im/FtUu : new package : highlight `- http://tr.im/EAD5 : LondonR slides -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
