On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Phil Mayers <p.mayers@imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
On 03/02/2013 03:24 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
I don't really understand how this is any easier with PB than with AMP, though. With AMP, you "just" need the same command definitions on both sides. With PB, you need the exact same Python code versions for every class you are sending over the wire;
I don't use PB like that. I only ever send simple data structures made of builtin types (int, str, list, dict).
Interesting; I guess that's obvious in retrospect but I hadn't thought of using PB like that, and I suppose it's not possible to use AMP like that.
You don't quite have to do a TCP handshake for every request you want to send over an HTTP channel, but there are still some problems.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know.
My point is that, for the use-cases *I* have, those limitations have not proven to be a problem, so the effort of deploying a protocol which avoids those limitations is not warranted.
Sure, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, just wanted to clarify for the purposes of the discussion. It sounds like your analysis is sound for the use cases you're concerned with, I don't have any objection to that. -- mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar