On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > >> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> I *think* the "native" git protocol uses binary here. It makes sense > >>> to be consistent, to allow them to share code? > >> > >> No, the native protocol is horribly verbose here: > >> > >> 0032want ac3abe10ed54d512fbbaeb7cef19972eedd8e4a8 > >> ... > >> > >> so its doing it in hex, and its using 10 bytes of "framing" for > >> every SHA-1 it sends as each is sent in its own pkt-line with the > >> have/want header. > > > > Hm. It's probably not enough data to worry significantly about. > > Should I change the HTTP protocol then to use the same format, > so they have a better chance at sharing code between them? Given that the ref exchange happens on multiple lines (one ref per line) in the native protocol, and that your proposal is using one line for multiple refs, I don't see this as a big factor wrt code reuse. Since you'll have separate "output" code anyway, why not simply going with refs in straight binary for the HTTP protocol? Even the debugability of refs exchange in plain text is dubious especially with all refs on the same line (that'll be a pain to split refs out of a long stream of hex by hand). Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
