On 3/20/09 3:49 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Publish the structure definition files and add support for .thrift
on URLs instead of .xml or .json.
Instead of? Not in addition to?
Sure, in addition to ... either way. :-)
--
Dossy Shiobara | do...@panoptic.com | http://dossy.org/
P
> > That would definitely require us to weigh our current knowledge of
> > Thrift vs Protocol Buffers. I'll think about it.
>
> Alternatively, returning responses from Twitter's API encoded with
> Thrift would be great, too. Publish the structure definition files and
> add support for .thrift
On 3/3/09 4:13 PM, Alex Payne wrote:
That would definitely require us to weigh our current knowledge of
Thrift vs Protocol Buffers. I'll think about it.
Alternatively, returning responses from Twitter's API encoded with
Thrift would be great, too. Publish the structure definition files and
Where can I find an opne sources that only picks up Twitter users pictures
linked to their profiles? Thanks.
Protocol Buffers is yet another RPC scheme that requires compilation of the
data types. If on the other hand you define simple data types this can be
much simpler and finessed, and including dealing with such RPC issues as
endian-ness. wondering if is there any sort of compression of XML that
That would definitely require us to weigh our current knowledge of
Thrift vs Protocol Buffers. I'll think about it.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:42, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
>
> On 3/3/09 3:07 PM, Alex Payne wrote:
>>
>> We're fully aware of what Protocol Buffers are their intended use. We
>> use Thri
On 3/3/09 3:07 PM, Alex Payne wrote:
We're fully aware of what Protocol Buffers are their intended use. We
use Thrift, Facebook's clone of Protocol Buffers. You might note the
use of the world "internal" in the material you quoted.
Quoting from http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/
We're fully aware of what Protocol Buffers are their intended use. We
use Thrift, Facebook's clone of Protocol Buffers. You might note the
use of the world "internal" in the material you quoted.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:05, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
>
> On 3/3/09 2:51 PM, Alex Payne wrote:
>>
>> Pr
On 3/3/09 2:51 PM, Alex Payne wrote:
Protocol Buffers aren't really designed for over-the-Internet APIs.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe that Google allows third-party
interaction with their services over Protocol Buffers.
From the Protocol Buffers project page:
"Protocol Buffers are a w
Protocol Buffers aren't really designed for over-the-Internet APIs.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe that Google allows third-party
interaction with their services over Protocol Buffers.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 19:37, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is always json.
> Perhap
Jeffrey,
Do you think a paging interface for the social graph methods would quickly
solve this problem? In that way, you could limit the number of users
returned with each call (thus limiting the number of bytes returned per
call).
Doug
@dougw
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Jeffrey Greenberg <
True JSON is probably more compact. But NO to Google's Protocol
Buffers - it's yet another RPC interface requiring compilation.
But really I want to focus on the 502 errors!
There is always json.
Perhaps Twitter will consider implementing Protocol Buffers.
Google uses this lightweight protocol internally:
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/
I don't know how it compares to json performance wise though.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 19:14, Jeffrey Greenberg
wrote:
>
> My app
13 matches
Mail list logo
