From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YDIYA-0000do-P1 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:03:50 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.173; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qc0-f173.google.com; Received: from mail-qc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YDIY9-0001ds-OG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:03:50 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id m20so16753792qcx.4 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:03:44 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.98.225 with SMTP id o88mr38441338qge.5.1421697824324; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:03:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.28] (c-69-143-204-74.hsd1.md.comcast.net. [69.143.204.74]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v16sm13175987qaw.30.2015.01.19.12.03.40 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:03:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54BD6314.60607@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:03:32 -0500 From: Alan Reiner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: <2C7D6208-1921-4DDC-90FE-DB1ABE1D61DB@petertodd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060407000803050905050006" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (etotheipi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YDIY9-0001ds-OG Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP70: why Google Protocol Buffers for encoding? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:03:50 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060407000803050905050006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm a bit confused. It's been a long time since I looked at protobuf (and will have to dig into it soon), but I seem to recall it doesn't have any of the determinism properties you guys just said. It is intended to allow you to skip details of the on-the-wire representations and just send a bunch of named fields between systems. I thought there was no guarantee that two identical protobuf structures will get serialized identically...? On 01/19/2015 02:57 PM, Richard Brady wrote: > Thanks guys, great answers. > > The design choice certainly makes a lot more sense now regardless of > whether one agrees with it or not. > > Regards, > Richard > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. > GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. > Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. > Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet > > > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development --------------060407000803050905050006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I'm a bit confused.  It's been a long time since I looked at protobuf (and will have to dig into it soon), but I seem to recall it doesn't have any of the determinism properties you guys just said.  It is intended to allow you to skip details of the on-the-wire representations and just send a bunch of named fields between systems.  I thought there was no guarantee that two identical protobuf structures will get serialized identically...?




On 01/19/2015 02:57 PM, Richard Brady wrote:
Thanks guys, great answers. 

The design choice certainly makes a lot more sense now regardless of whether one agrees with it or not.

Regards,
Richard



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet


_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development

--------------060407000803050905050006--