Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

馃悶[0018] The canonical flatbuffers proposal #47

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from
Closed

馃悶[0018] The canonical flatbuffers proposal #47

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

doitian
Copy link
Member

@doitian doitian commented Dec 7, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Preview: [ English ]

@doitian doitian requested review from janx, xxuejie and a team December 7, 2018 06:59
@doitian doitian changed the title draft the canonical flatbuffers proposal The canonical flatbuffers proposal Dec 7, 2018
@quake quake mentioned this pull request Dec 17, 2018
Merged
2 tasks
@janx janx mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2018
Merged
@doitian doitian changed the title The canonical flatbuffers proposal [WIP] The canonical flatbuffers proposal Dec 22, 2018
@nervos-bot nervos-bot bot mentioned this pull request Jan 3, 2019
Closed
2 tasks
@doitian doitian force-pushed the cfb-encoding branch 4 times, most recently from 728dddb to 7cd8616 Compare January 11, 2019 02:14
@doitian doitian changed the title [WIP] The canonical flatbuffers proposal The canonical flatbuffers proposal Jan 11, 2019
@doitian
Copy link
Member Author

doitian commented Jan 11, 2019

Ready for review

@doitian doitian added s:available Status: This issue is available for implementation. and removed s:draft labels Jan 11, 2019
@doitian doitian requested a review from a team January 11, 2019 03:18
@janx
Copy link
Member

janx commented Jan 11, 2019

I'd like to see some benchmarks comparing CFB with Bitcoin block/tx serialization and RLP in terms of time/space efficiency in this PR.

@doitian
Copy link
Member Author

doitian commented Jan 11, 2019

I'd like to see some benchmarks comparing CFB with Bitcoin block/tx serialization and RLP in terms of time/space efficiency in this PR.

CFB is believed to have the same performance of FlatBuffers, since it is FlatBuffers.

@quake has already done the comparison in https://github.com/nervosnetwork/serde_bench

However, I'll keep in mind to put an eye on the benchmark.

@janx
Copy link
Member

janx commented Feb 13, 2019

Is this PR ready to merge?

@doitian doitian changed the title The canonical flatbuffers proposal [0018] The canonical flatbuffers proposal Mar 13, 2019
@doitian doitian added the s:waiting-on-author Status: The marked PR is awaiting some action (such as code changes) from the PR author. label Mar 15, 2019
@doitian doitian closed this Apr 14, 2019
@doitian
Copy link
Member Author

doitian commented Apr 14, 2019

I'm sorry but it seems that @github is not going to fix the 500 issue. The team could not open this PR in desktop browser, it is inconvenient to discuss in this PR. I will recreate a new PR.

@doitian doitian added the 500 label Apr 14, 2019
@doitian doitian changed the title [0018] The canonical flatbuffers proposal 馃悶[0018] The canonical flatbuffers proposal Apr 14, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@janx janx janx left review comments

@xxuejie xxuejie xxuejie left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
s:available Status: This issue is available for implementation. s:waiting-on-author Status: The marked PR is awaiting some action (such as code changes) from the PR author.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@doitian @janx @xxuejie