On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman
<sussman_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> P.S. I did some reading on both protocol buffers and thrift -- and
> neither technology seems to work as a replacement for our XML trees.
> We need to make sure that our big trees (editor-drives) are never held
> entirely in memory at once, either when serializing or deserializing
> them. Both protobufs and thrift insist on holding the whole 'object'
> in memory at once. Urk. Maybe we can just share svnserve's
> parser/unparser for lisp-representations of trees. I'm sure it's
> still way faster than XML.
>
I'm +1 for using svnserver parser/unparser for http protocol v2:
- we already have protocol and implementation for
- svnserve protocol efficiently handles binary data
- svnserve protocol is easy and sufficient
- as Ben noted serialization should be easy adopted to serf_bucket_t
approach where request/response data parsed/unparsed on demand.
--
Ivan Zhakov
VisualSVN Team
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-02 16:33:04 CEST