User talk:EMBee/Binary Serialization: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Getting back to objects, the whole concept of RPC can be interesting and useful, but it's probably best to implement as a separate layer from serialization. Meanwhile, your current draft has a "transaction id" which I think does not belong in serialization but could belong in RPC. |
Getting back to objects, the whole concept of RPC can be interesting and useful, but it's probably best to implement as a separate layer from serialization. Meanwhile, your current draft has a "transaction id" which I think does not belong in serialization but could belong in RPC. |
||
:well, the transaction id needs to be sent over the wire, as it is used to match a response to to the request |
:well, the transaction id needs to be sent over the wire, as it is used to match a response to to the request |
||
::Ok. And that is indeed an RPC issue, yes? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Anyways, this is something to think about? For the context of your draft page, I do not know if I am suggesting a change in title or a change in implementation. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
Anyways, this is something to think about? For the context of your draft page, I do not know if I am suggesting a change in title or a change in implementation. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
||