Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:02:44 -0400 From: Richard Coleman <rcoleman@criticalmagic.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_mutex.c Message-ID: <4256FF84.20008@criticalmagic.com> In-Reply-To: <22307.1112996518@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <22307.1112996518@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <4256BF44.2000100@errno.com>, Sam Leffler writes: > > >>>And besides, a formatted sysctl has no binary compatibility issues at >>>all. I like that too. >>> >> >>Sure, that's the downside; you need to design binary protocols with care >>(this is a protocol after all). > > > And given that X.400 is dead and SMTP lives I would say that an ascii > based protocol is preferable. > There are plenty of binary based protocols in common use. Anything defined by ASN.1 is an example (ldap, Kerberos, etc). But I generally agree that simple ASCII based protocols are preferable unless you are doing something complicated. But I think the general idea was that any ad hoc protocol will generally suck, whether it is binary or ascii. Richard Coleman rcoleman@criticalmagic.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4256FF84.20008>