Re: [dispatch] SIP-CLF: text versus binary

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Eric Burger wrote:
> I would humbly offer that the number of iterations it took for Theo
> (super awesome coder), Adam (truly awesome coder), and Vijay (above
> average coder) to get a half decent binary implementation of a CLF
> writer and reader highlights the argument for a text-based LOG file.

Vijay's initial implementation was pretty much spot-on, with one easily 
fixed exception. Improvements past that point were pretty much 
incremental, minor, and inconsequential in the grand order of things 
(except for Theo's last change, which is really just Theo working some 
deep voodoo magic that would apply equally to text and binary).

In either case, the speed of processing one versus the other stands at 
5x to 10x by any reasonable metric.

> Imagine what an average coder would do.

Any coder sufficiently competent to get a SIP parser even halfway right 
should be able to code this in their sleep.


Bob Penfield wrote:
 > We could eliminate the implementation issues by including the code in 
 > the RFC.

I like that idea. I'll adapt my perl script to a library and add it as 
an appendix to the next version of the binary CLF document (presuming 
there's any reason to produce a "next version").

/a