David Haley said:
I'll fess up straight away that I don't really see the advantage of this over, say, ZMP. I don't know ATCP but apparently it does something kinda similar. But really, this kind of protocol exists, and ZMP at least is quite simple, and it's easier to define semantics in ZMP using the package/command mechanism. (ZMP is also very easy to parse.)
...
Were there specific issues with other protocols that you wanted to address?
Twisol said:
I have to agree with David here, I don't see the benefits of this over ZMP in particular. If you wanted to use Lua as part of the protocol, you could probably define a subpackage in ZMP for it quite easily.
I think you guys are answering your own questions here:
David Haley said:
ZMP makes no provision whatsoever for data types, as far as I can remember. This means that you must define your own interpretation for what it means to have subfields, etc.
Worstje said:
I don't feel ZMP is the perfect solution, since from what I see it has considerable flaws.
…
First of all, it keeps mentioning commands, and I don't see anywhere about plain notifications that do not require a response.
….
Second, it has limitations on the content-bytes, no NUL bytes and so forth.
...
Either way, my point is... ZMP has flaws. The new LNL (Lasher-Nick-Lua) has flaws. XML has flaws. JSON has flaws, as does Python, VBScript, as well as bencoding.
Let's assume every system has some flaws, and at this stage I am trying to reduce any in my proposed system (e.g. message limits, handling of subnegotiation), and offer up simplicity and ease of use as an argument for it.
|