Re: [Xen-devel] Guidelines for new PV protocol submission

[Vitaly Chernooky <vitalii.chernookyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> 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,

Â

Ian.

--

Vitaly Chernooky |ÂSenior 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel