RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary
Bud Biswas <bbiswas@polarisnetworks.net> Tue, 02 August 2005 19:50 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E02mX-0006cg-Pi; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:50:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E02mU-0006cb-Nf for rfid@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 15:50:31 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14406 for <rfid@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web305.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.181]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E03Iz-0008ME-Ur for rfid@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:24:08 -0400
Received: (qmail 66437 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Aug 2005 19:50:12 -0000
Message-ID: <20050802195012.66435.qmail@web305.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [209.113.192.144] by web305.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:50:12 PDT
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:50:12 -0700
From: Bud Biswas <bbiswas@polarisnetworks.net>
Subject: RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary
To: Rob.Buck@intermec.com
In-Reply-To: <49E558014BABD711AA980002A5421C999E04DC@normail.norand.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 995b2e24d23b953c94bac5288c432399
Cc: rfid@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rfid@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: bbiswas@polarisnetworks.net
List-Id: Control and Access of Infrastructure for RFID Operations Discussion List <rfid.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid>, <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rfid>
List-Post: <mailto:rfid@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid>, <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2098440788=="
Sender: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org
I see the usefullness of both XML and binary to different vendors. Altho' it is true that programmers will generally prefer binary to work with, XML is also useful to a different user community (non programmers). My preference would be to see that Readers support binary as mandatory and XML as optional along with the Middleware supports binary as input from reader (mandatory) and XML input as optional. This will allow us to build both "thin" readers as well as "heavy duty" readers where the readers support XML also and may include the middleware software. Bud Biswas Rob.Buck@intermec.com wrote: Viewpoint from another hardware vendor: If SLRRP gains traction we'll probably want to adapt it to a reader module with a serial interface to maintain a common interface between readers. However, if SLRRP is XML-based I don't think it will be viable for serial I/O. A minimal text protocol is marginal over serial. Adding XML (even if minimal) pushes the bandwidth over the top. I agree with the human readable arguments of text vs binary. With text we've experienced lower training and support costs, faster time-to-market, etc. However, I foresee RFID development becoming more specialized with the proliferation of readers in the supply chain. It's likely that vertical application developers will only concern themselves with a high-level ALE-like interface. RFID middleware developers will grapple with the low-level interfaces. We have a group of network programmers that tell me they prefer a binary interface. They have tools (LAN analyzers, etc.) to work with binary so they're not concerned with human readable. They argue that programming to a binary interface is easier/higher performance than parsing text. Rob Buck RFID Software Architect Intermec Technologies, Corp. Ofc: 641-472-3082 Cell: 319-573-5294 -----Original Message----- From: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Margaret Wasserman Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 8:15 AM To: Marshall Rose Cc: rfid@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Hi Marshall, I think we are mostly in agreement about the technical trade-offs, but for some reason that doesn't lead us to the same conclusion... At 9:16 AM +0530 7/23/05, Marshall Rose wrote: >this brings us back full circle: as soon as you have any level of >nesting, human type-in becomes problematic. as soon as you decide >that human type-in isn't mandatory, it is trivial to include a >standard library to do the heavy lifting while the humans invoke the >tool using textual commands. Yes, if there is any significant nesting, I agree that a human will not be able to type the commands in from memory and/or by glancing at a reference sheet. However, I don't see any reason why this protocol would require significant nesting, at least for the types of commands that a human is likely to use directly. With a text encoding, a human could also have certain prepared commands and be able to cut and paste them into the interface -- a command to reset autonomous operation, for example, or to set a reader to its default state. Or they could write simple scripts that would send specific commands or command sequences. >in other words, from where i sit, XML, cXML, etc., enjoy all the >drawbacks of both purist approaches. Correct, from a "human typing" standpoint, XML, cXML and a specialized text encoding are all roughly equivalent. However, in my opinion, they are all much better than a binary encoding. There are two factors involved here, and all three of these choices (XML, binary or specialized encodings) are fundamentally different WRT these factors: (1) Can the incoming stream be parsed by a widely available parser, or is a specialized parser necessary. XML parsers are available for all likely client systems, but a specialized text encoding or a binary encoding would require a specialized parser. BTW, subsetting XML _does not_ require a specialized parser. Reader vendors might want to includes a specialized (smaller or faster) parser and simply reject XML constructs that are not included in the subset, but clients could use a regular XML parser for this purpose. (2) Can text processing tools be used to send control messages and interpret the responses, or would binary processing be required. Both XML and a specialized text encoding would allow text processing of the messages and results, while a binary encoding would require binary processing. You've indicated that it is possible, with a binary encoding, for clients to run a tool that gives them text-based access. That's true, but users would need to _get_ that tool from somewhere... So, we are back to requiring specialized code on the client side to access this protocol. This isn't a religious issue with me -- I've just learned the benefits of text-based encoding the hard way, and I don't want to deal with another binary protocol... So, for the moment, we may have to just agree to disagree. We'd obviously need to resolve this before we can move ahead, though. Only a few of us have expressed any opinion on this subject. Are there others out there that have an opinion? There are two questions that I'd especially like to hear answered by specific other people on this list: (1) I'd like to hear from other reader vendors about whether they think that XML would place a prohibitive burden on their readers. It has been asserted that XML would have prohibitive system requirements for the reader. That certainly isn't true of ThingMagic's networked readers. In fact, using a standard parser, like XML, would reduce our development (especially debugging) and testing costs substantially, and would make it more likely that we would implement this protocol. (2) It would be very interesting to know if RFID users would see any benefit to a text-based encoding. Are there folks on this list who have RFID installed in real-world or even pilot installations (not just a few units in a test lab)? Do you have any opinions about whether the ability to access the reader using text-based tools from a client system that doesn't have a specialized client (or library) installed would be useful? Or do you see this as having little/no value? Margaret _______________________________________________ Rfid mailing list Rfid@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid "This message is intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited." _______________________________________________ Rfid mailing list Rfid@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid Polaris Networks your source for rfid test tools
_______________________________________________ Rfid mailing list Rfid@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid
- [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Frederico, Gustavo
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Rob.Buck
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary David Husak
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Marshall Rose
- [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Stephane Bortzmeyer
- RE: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- Re: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Juergen Schoenwaelder
- [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- Re: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- RE: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- Contradictions (Was: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. … Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- RE: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Marshall Rose
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Rob.Buck
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Bud Biswas
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Arjun Roychowdhury
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Rob.Buck
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Suresh Bhaskaran