Hey, guys -
Cap'n Proto is supported by C++, Erlang, _javascript_, Python, Rust, C, C#, Go, Java, Lua, OCaml, and Ruby [0]. I think that pretty well covers the landscape, unless someone out there is working in Haskell or Lisp?!
The biggest advantages I see with Cap'n Proto have nothing to do with performance.
0) The ability to evolve a spec without breaking backwards-compatibility [1].
1) The fact that you get input validation and parsing for free [2].
[0]: https://capnproto.org/otherlang.html
[1]: https://capnproto.org/language.html#evolving-your-protocol
[2]: https://capnproto.org/index.html
Cheers,
Trey
--
Trey Darley
Senior Security Engineer
Soltra
An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
www.soltra.com
From: <> on behalf of Wunder, John A. <>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 13:56
To: Jordan, Bret; Terry MacDonald
Cc: Eric Burger;
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding
I agree with Bret: one binding to rule them all, one binding to…bind…them.
I also agree that the single binding should be JSON. I think people will have huge problems implementing a binary protocol across a variety of languages and platforms. We would have to consider language/library support, compatibility between different libraries, and all the other challenges of a binary protocol.
If at some point volume surpasses what we can do in JSON that would be a good time to counter my first statement and add a binary protocol *for only those use cases* and continue to use JSON for other use cases. In other words, we might add another binding but each use case would only have a single supported binding.
John
From: <
> on behalf of "Jordan, Bret"
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:36 AM
To: Terry MacDonald
Cc: Eric Burger, " "
Subject: Re: [cti-stix] Proposal - Single Binding
I am not against a binary version. I do have concerns about ease of use with binary. I also have concerns with good solid support for handhelds.
But that discussion aside, I think we both agree on "not XML" and "only one way to do it".
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 64
On Jul 29, 2015, at 11:03 PM, Terry MacDonald <
> wrote:
I disagree with Brett's statement that the only binding should be JSON. I believe that the only binding should be a binary protocol of some sort. We differ in our beliefs there, but we do both believe there should only be a single binding. One way to do it.
The protocol discussion and testing stages should be very interesting when we go through the various options as a community.
Cheers Terry MacDonald
> On 30 Jul 2015 1:38 pm, "Eric Burger" <
> wrote: >> >> Fine with me. Anyone else? >> >> The counter argument might be “Why bother with UML?” I would offer it is because UML and OWL will let us see the actual relationships. What may be cool is to compile them into JSON bindings. That’s a <hint> research project. >> >>
> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:00 PM, Jordan, Bret <
> wrote: >> > >>
> On the community call there was a statement made that STIX will continue down the old path of UML and then OWL with bindings for XML and others. There needs to be a single binding, and it should be JSON. The only reason I wanted UML was to break our dependency on XML-isims to make it easier to do JSON. >> > >>
> Bret >> > >>
> Sent from my Commodore 64 >> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>> > >>
