Relative to the thrift v. gpb comparison table here
<
http://stuartsierra.com/2008/07/10/thrift-vs-protocol-buffers>:
Etch
Backers
Cisco, Apache (accepted for incubation)
Bindings
Java, C#; (ruby, python and C under development)
Output Formats
Binary (own xml format under development; other formats easily
accommodated: json, xml-rpc, uri, ...)
Primitive Types
object, bool, byte, short, int, long, float, double, string, map, list,
set, datetime, single or multi-dimensional arrays of anything.
Enumerations
Yes
Constants
Yes
Composite Type
Yes
Exception Type
Yes
Documentation
Language good, runtime so-so
License
Apache 2.0
Compiler Language
Java, Velocity
RPC Interfaces
Yes
RPC Implementation
Yes
Composite Type Ext.
Yes
Etch features runtime configured transport independence, message
attributes which allow for fine grained specification of rpc properties
such as timeout, direction, oneway, authorization, etc.
Etch allows for natural expression of null or missing values. Etch
binary protocol support variable length encoding of protocol elements.
If you wanted, it probably would be fairly easy to incorporate google
protocol buffers as a transport encoding option.
Performance of etch is nearly equivalent to Thrift. A simple message,
int add( int x, int y ), is about 49 bytes long on the wire and on
typical hardware you can process 15k of these per second when sender and
receiver are on the same machine.
scott out
_______________________________________________
Etch mailing list
Etch@developer.cisco.com
Attachment not added (content type not allowed): "att1.html"
Attachment not added (content type not allowed): "sccomer.vcf"
Cisco Unified Application Environment Developer Forums 
