Skip to content

Comment on Msgpack can't differentiate between raw binary data and text stringsparent

Comments

> I think your view, while warranted, is very web programming centric

FWIW, I do very little "web work" (by which I assume you mean front-end?). Instead it is mostly api endpoints for mobile and server-to-server backend messaging. Lots of http transport stuff. If I were doing rpc, I would either not (and use a restful or type-2 api), or use something like protobuf or thrift.

Msgpack just doesn't seem, to me, as a really great fit for anything in particular.

I don't mean frontend but anything related to web services, really. "Lots of http transport stuff" is still "web programming" (for me, at least).

>Msgpack just doesn't seem, to me, as a really great fit for anything in particular.

Pinterest disagrees: http://engineering.pinterest.com/posts/2012/memcache-games/

To give you some context, frsyuki developed MessagePack originally for RPC (he was building a distributed key-value store in college) and made a conscious decision not to add a string type for maximal cross-language compatibility. Like a lot of other technology, MessagePack has outlived its original purpose, and there is a lot of demand now for it to support the (utf-8) string type, not just byte array.

  >  "Lots of http transport stuff" is still "web programming" (for me, at least).
Web programming to me sounds like javascript and css. A the very least something to do with html output at some point. Oh well.
  > Pinterest disagrees: http://engineering.pinterest.com/posts/2012/memcache-games/
I didn't see any reference in that post to them trying compression. It would have been an interesting comparison.

Good data point on usefulness though. Thanks for that.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.