Will Protocol Buffers constrain me to Netty?

[Chew Kok Hoor]

I think one of the coolest fact about Networking frameworks like Netty is,
they allow computers to communicate with each other, regardless of what
Network Framework the other is using, as long as they use the same protocol.

The fact that ProtocolBuffer is from Google, not Netty shows that Netty is
open and can be used to easily build protocol encoders/decoders on top of it
for communication purposes, much like other protocols such as Http that
Netty has built in decoders for.

In the end, regardless of whether you are writing a client or a server, the
other end only see what you send to them, and not which framework you use,
therefore, there is no fear that the other end has to use Netty. In fact, in
the future, if you want to move away from Netty, nothing stops you from that
as well.

Regards,
    Kok Hoor

2010/7/3 Marc-André Laverdière <marcandre.laverdiere at gmail.com>

> Protocol buffers give you interoperability across platforms and
> programming languages.
> Let the others use whatever network api they wish... at the end of the
> day everyone will speak protobuf.
>
> Marc-André LAVERDIÈRE
> "Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and
> complete, not lacking anything." -James 1:4
> mlaverd.theunixplace.com/blog
>
>  /"\
>  \ /    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
>  X      against HTML e-mail
>  / \
>
>
>
> 2010/7/3 anthony_w <awwold69 at hotmail.com>:
> >
> > I've written a server application in Netty utilizing Google Protoc
> > Buffers/ProtobufDecoder.  For reason I won't go into, I believe the
> > developer who is going to write the client piece will probably not
> embrace
> > Netty for implementing that.  Am I limiting my options for non-Netty
> > frameworks or api's for developing a client piece by using protocol
> buffers?
> > I know this isn't directly a Netty question but I thought it might be
> likely
> > that someone using Netty and protocol buffers may have already ran into
> this
> > scenario.
> >
> > My fallback plan right now would be to change my implementation to
> something
> > like accepting an array of bytes representing a JSON object and then
> > deserializing that into my protobuf message object.  But that seems like
> > it's just adding one additional step for no real benefit.
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://netty-forums-and-mailing-lists.685743.n2.nabble.com/Will-Protocol-Buffers-constrain-me-to-Netty-tp5249156p5249156.html
> > Sent from the Netty User Group mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > _______________________________________________
> > netty-users mailing list
> > netty-users at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> netty-users mailing list
> netty-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/netty-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/netty-users/attachments/20100704/f1267b5d/attachment.html