On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 13:59 +0200, Vitaly Chernooky wrote: > > > Guys, what do you think about using an Interface Description Language > > such as Google Protocol Buffers or something like? > > After a bit of googling and reading it seems like Google Protocol > Buffers includes a specific wire encoding, a la ASN.1 or CORBA, whereas > we need to be able to describe existing binary formats. > > I haven't evaluated the suitability for new PV protocols, but it seems > like Protocol Buffers are not really intended for shared memory > protocols (rather network transparent ones). Perhaps I'm wrong though, I > just had a quick look. > I just want to mention than machine-readable protocol description is reasonable and possibly has some advantages for us over rfc-like protocol description style. So i'm interested to know another opinions about it. With best regards, > Ian. > -- *Vitaly Chernooky | Senior Developer - Product Engineering and Development* GlobalLogic P *+380.44.4929695 ext.1136* M *+380.98.7920568* S cvv_2k www.globallogic.com http://www.globallogic.com/email_disclaimer.txt
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
