[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: binary interface
From: |
Keisuke Nishida |
Subject: |
Re: binary interface |
Date: |
Thu, 01 Mar 2001 23:37:54 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.4.0 (Rio) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/21.0.96 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:27:56 -0500,
Keisuke Nishida wrote:
>
> A text representation might be better because it could reduce
> file size, but I'm not sure how much it would.
It would be feasible to choose an intermix solution. We could
use the following semi-binary format:
<object> = <integer> | <string> | <list> | <smob> | ...
<integer> = [0-9]+ ' '
<string> = "s" <integer> [a-z...]+
<list> = "(" <object>+ ")"
<smob> = "o" <smob-name> <smob-data>
...
Example:
Text format: (1 "foo") 9 bytes
Semi-binary format: (1 s3 foo) 10 bytes
Binary format: [cons][1][#1][cons][#2][()][string][foo\0] 32 bytes
The semi-binary format is much shorter than the binary format,
while being very friendly to the reader. If I/O is much slower
than CPU, the semi-binary format above should be better than
the current binary format. Should we try it?