the license is essentially a statement that the Blink specification is and will be entirely free to use. There has been a lot of discussion re lock-in and we wanted to be clear about our intentions. Implementors are…
ease of use. It is a much nicer syntax to use when authoring message specs. There are equivalent XML and JSON syntax variants for Blink schemas for those who'd prefer that. Rolf
We discussed length preambles vs markers when we designed the FAST protocol 8 years ago. That time we made length preambles optional (there are two "modes"). The nature of the FAST encoding made it impractical to use…
I was maybe a little terse in my blog post. I agree that you can certainly do this, but it seems G decided that it was not worth adding as a core feature. At least that is my understanding from reading their docs. Blink…
agreed, a test suite will be essential for implementors. I'd be very interested to hear you thoughts on this. Please mail me if you have interest. Rolf
good question; I usually declare fields optional for the reason described in the reply above. I just re-ran the test with all fields declared as "required". It ran ~2% faster.
the license is essentially a statement that the Blink specification is and will be entirely free to use. There has been a lot of discussion re lock-in and we wanted to be clear about our intentions. Implementors are…
ease of use. It is a much nicer syntax to use when authoring message specs. There are equivalent XML and JSON syntax variants for Blink schemas for those who'd prefer that. Rolf
We discussed length preambles vs markers when we designed the FAST protocol 8 years ago. That time we made length preambles optional (there are two "modes"). The nature of the FAST encoding made it impractical to use…
I was maybe a little terse in my blog post. I agree that you can certainly do this, but it seems G decided that it was not worth adding as a core feature. At least that is my understanding from reading their docs. Blink…
agreed, a test suite will be essential for implementors. I'd be very interested to hear you thoughts on this. Please mail me if you have interest. Rolf
good question; I usually declare fields optional for the reason described in the reply above. I just re-ran the test with all fields declared as "required". It ran ~2% faster.