Comments on: JAX-RS + Protobufs http://www.subbu.org/blog/2008/12/jax-rs-protobufs Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:16:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Is Google Protocol Buffers RESTful? « Bill the Plumber http://www.subbu.org/blog/2008/12/jax-rs-protobufs/comment-page-1#comment-97806 Is Google Protocol Buffers RESTful? « Bill the Plumber Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:45 +0000 http://www.subbu.org/?p=781#comment-97806 [...] of Goggle Protocol Buffers within a RESTful architecture: Ryan’s, Vinoski’s, and Subbu’s. Although I am very late to the discussion, I thought I’d blog about my opinion on the [...] [...] of Goggle Protocol Buffers within a RESTful architecture: Ryan’s, Vinoski’s, and Subbu’s. Although I am very late to the discussion, I thought I’d blog about my opinion on the [...]

]]> By: DamnHandy » Protocol Buffers are not very “RESTish”. http://www.subbu.org/blog/2008/12/jax-rs-protobufs/comment-page-1#comment-69281 DamnHandy » Protocol Buffers are not very “RESTish”. Sun, 09 May 2010 15:26:17 +0000 http://www.subbu.org/?p=781#comment-69281 [...] Allamaraju has pointed out that the protobuf media type doesn’t doesn’t convey enough information as to indicate what message type is in the protobuf representation. Protobuf doesn’t have an [...] [...] Allamaraju has pointed out that the protobuf media type doesn’t doesn’t convey enough information as to indicate what message type is in the protobuf representation. Protobuf doesn’t have an [...]

]]> By: subbu http://www.subbu.org/blog/2008/12/jax-rs-protobufs/comment-page-1#comment-15393 subbu Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:20:01 +0000 http://www.subbu.org/?p=781#comment-15393 @Sam: If this approach is needed, I would go for a new custom media type for each resource - otherwise the response becomes opaque and can open security holes. As far as a benchmark is concerned, since protobufs provide more efficient (de)serialization over generic parsers, using a custom XML parser may provide for a better comparison. @Sam: If this approach is needed, I would go for a new custom media type for each resource – otherwise the response becomes opaque and can open security holes. As far as a benchmark is concerned, since protobufs provide more efficient (de)serialization over generic parsers, using a custom XML parser may provide for a better comparison.

]]> By: Sam Pullara http://www.subbu.org/blog/2008/12/jax-rs-protobufs/comment-page-1#comment-15350 Sam Pullara Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:38:32 +0000 http://www.subbu.org/?p=781#comment-15350 Clearly you would have to make the .proto files available to the clients in some fashion. My guess is that you could get them into the WADL file that describes the REST services but I haven't looked closely at it. As for *requiring* protocol buffers, it is very easy in JAX-RS to offer more than one media-type for coming and going for any particular call and it will do the discrimination for you based on Content-Type and Accept headers. As for actual performance when you stick this inside an HTTP envelope it is hard to say as I don't have a compelling benchmark to run to compare them. Maybe I will transfer 100 Yahoo BOSS search results over it or something and compare the performance to JSON and XML with and without gzip... would that be an interesting test? Sam Clearly you would have to make the .proto files available to the clients in some fashion. My guess is that you could get them into the WADL file that describes the REST services but I haven’t looked closely at it. As for *requiring* protocol buffers, it is very easy in JAX-RS to offer more than one media-type for coming and going for any particular call and it will do the discrimination for you based on Content-Type and Accept headers. As for actual performance when you stick this inside an HTTP envelope it is hard to say as I don’t have a compelling benchmark to run to compare them. Maybe I will transfer 100 Yahoo BOSS search results over it or something and compare the performance to JSON and XML with and without gzip… would that be an interesting test?

Sam

]]>