On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:17:39PM +0200, Bernd wrote: > 2012/9/26 <tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > >>> After implementing the torchat protocol and seeing how bad it > >>> is, but how nice the idea is > > What is bad about the torchat protocol? Is it its pragmatism and the > fact that it does not use xml and other bloat? It's not pragmatist at all, it wastes time and resources doing replaces when it could have just been really binary and prepend the length of the packet, which is the sane way to do something like that instead of using an end of packet separator. It would allow the preallocation of memory or rejection of something too long. Also protocol buffers would have been a better choice for something like that, it would have beeen even smaller than your protocol and easier to implement, it would have made the protocol self-documenting too.
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk