From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.86.200 with SMTP id t8mr61989260qal.0.1373875828060; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:10:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.116.2 with SMTP id js2mr1604813qeb.8.1373875828047; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!t19no1656697qam.0!news-out.google.com!f7ni2314qai.0!nntp.google.com!t19no1656696qam.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:10:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <81e2d51a-90a5-4c82-b275-80b345b894f6@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=195.182.34.201; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.182.34.201 References: <20130712075752.46e2cf01@atmarama.noip.me> <7619c730-b138-4bd9-a0e7-9c80d26f7f00@googlegroups.com> <81e2d51a-90a5-4c82-b275-80b345b894f6@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <747d50ba-8076-4fc2-9e91-ce3923caa1f0@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada-Python demo From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:10:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Bytes: 3902 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:182519 Date: 2013-07-15T01:10:27-07:00 List-Id: > > http://www.inspirel.com/articles/YAMI4_vs_ZeroMQ.html > However, reading the article, it looks as if YAM14 uses its own data mode= l language Not exactly. YAMI4 *poposes* the data model out of the box, as this is what= is normally needed. If you have a communication solution that does not offer any data model at = all (ZeroMQ comes to mind, similarly to other low-level libraries), then us= ers are forced to solve the problem of data model and serialization *in add= ition* to the communication, which leads to using *two* different libraries= (like ZeroMQ with JSON, or sockets with protobuf, etc.) for handling what = is essentially a single problem: make two programs talk. Why the hell would= you want to use two separate libraries to solve this single problem? YAMI4 recognizes that and proposes a data model that is more or less equiva= lent in terms of expressiveness to JSON (that is, there is a small set of b= asic data types, arrays and nesting). And it happens to directly map to Pyt= hon's directory, which makes it trivial to use in that language and program= mers in other languages have the option to describe their object in YDL. Th= anks to this users can just take a single library and solve their *single* = problem of making two programs talk - no need to mess with two separate pro= ducts (think: licensing, integration, support, etc.). However, YAMI4 does not force users to commit to that particular data model= and if in a given system it makes sense to use other data models or serial= ization schemes, it is perfectly possible - YAMI4 supports also raw binary = data buffers. That is, you can use anything you like (JSON, ASN.1, XML, ont= ologies, whatever) with YAMI4. Interestingly, as far as I know, *nobody* does it. In other words, nobody c= hooses to benefit from the freedom to use anything they like. Which kind of= suggests that having a data model that works out of the box is perhaps a b= etter idea than not having it and pretending that communication and data mo= del are independent. Technically they are, but from the usability point of = view they are closely related. > that isn't translatable into any ontology language - which seems a major = problem. Not at all. :-) --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com