Use shorter names and values for internal attributes #74

Closed
netopyr opened this Issue Feb 4, 2016 · 7 comments

Projects

None yet

4 participants

@netopyr
Collaborator
netopyr commented Feb 4, 2016

To optimize the protocol, we should use shorter (single character?) names and values for our internal attributes

@netopyr netopyr added this to the 0.9.0 milestone Feb 4, 2016
@Dierk
Contributor
Dierk commented Feb 4, 2016

This is very unfortunate for logging/debugging.
One can use the ZippedJsonCodec instead in production (or just use https, which zips anyway)

@netopyr
Collaborator
netopyr commented Feb 4, 2016

I have worked with such protocols (e.g. FIX) and it is really no problem during development, because one learns and memorizes the important fields quickly. :) Optionally we could introduce a debug flag, which would switch to full names. But as I said, I do not deem that necessary.

Compressing data before encrypting it introduces new kinds of vulnerabilities, thus I would prefer if it remains optional and we try to get good performance without the need for compression.

@aalmiray
Contributor
aalmiray commented Feb 4, 2016

Shortening command and attribute names sounds like a good idea to me. Having a flag that turns this feature on/off is also good. Further down the road, perhaps a BSON or binary YAML codecs can be created to make the payload even smaller.

@Dierk
Contributor
Dierk commented Feb 4, 2016

when I get log output from clients for answering support questions (dev/test/prod) it is of extreme value to see the full picture.
This issue is to be handled at the codec level.

@aalmiray
Contributor
aalmiray commented Feb 4, 2016

A delegating codec sounds like a good compromise to me

@hendrikebbers
Member

@Dierk Your idea is to create something like a FastJsonCodec class next to the normal one (JsonCodec) that uses smaller names for the attributes? If yes, I think that this can be done.

@netopyr netopyr added the in progress label Feb 18, 2016
@netopyr netopyr modified the milestone: 0.8.1, 0.9.0 Feb 18, 2016
@aalmiray aalmiray removed the in progress label Feb 19, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment