DOCSLIB.ORG

Analytical Assessment of Binary Data Serialization Techniques in Iot Context [Evaluating Protocol Buffers, Flatbuffers, Messagepack

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analytical Assessment of Binary Data Serialization Techniques in Iot Context [Evaluating Protocol Buffers, Flatbuffers, Messagepack Analytical Assessment of Binary Data Serialization Techniques in IoT Context [Evaluating Protocol Buffers, FlatBuffers, MessagePack, and BSON for Sensor Nodes] Amrit Kumar Biswal Obada Almallah Student Id: 873052 Student Id: 894304 Advisor: Prof. Marco Brambilla Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria Politecnico di Milano This thesis is submitted for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science and Engineering December 2019 We would like to dedicate this thesis to our families, near and far. Acknowledgements First and foremost, we would like to express our appreciation to the power of teamwork and synchronized efforts that led the execution of this thesis. We would like to express our gratitude to our supervisor Prof. Marco Brambilla, who guided us in the right direction and helped us overcome the obstacles faced. Moreover, we would like to express our appreciation and acknowledge the power and vigorous efforts of the open-source community in developing and maintaining technologies that helped us conduct our experiments. Last but not least, we would like to thank our families and friends for the support, motivation, and inspiration they empowered us with that helped us stay on track. Special thanks to our friend Giacomo Tento for providing us with the Italian translated abstract. Abstract The exceptional development of IoT-enabled technologies has been pervasively fostering smart solutions that drive the innovation in various industries. This wide-scale and rapid development in the IoT market faces different challenges related to interoperability, due to fragmented technologies and applications, and related to the need of more IoT-specific standardization applied to the IoT infrastructure that considers the constraints and limitations of IoT applications. These issues can be traced back to the need of achieving a better resource efficiency in IoT systems due to the resource-constrained nature of IoT devices andthe limitations posed by the low power networks bandwidth, which in turn induces the IoT industry to apply different measures in order to achieve efficiency on the devices and on the network. These measures aim at reducing the overall traffic at the network level as well as reducing power and memory consumption at the device level. By achieving optimal network and device settings, the IoT system can in turn have the capacity to offer more services on the application level which consequently accelerates the achievement of the vision and expectations of IoT. One of the operations affecting device-level efficiency lies in the mechanism applied to structure and serialize the payload data. In this thesis we evaluate the resource-efficiency of a group of binary-based mechanisms in dealing with sensor nodesdata in purpose of arriving to candidate technique(s) that have the potential of being standardized within the IoT infrastructure as interoperable data format protocol(s). Keywords: IoT, Internet-of-things, Performance, Evaluation, Binary, Semantic, Data Serialization, Protocol Buffers, FlatBuffers, MessagePack, BSON Sommario L’eccezionale sviluppo di tecnologie abilitate all’IoT ha pervasivamente promosso l’adozione di smart solutions che guidano l’innovazione in vari settori industriali. Questo rapido e consistente sviluppo avvenuto del mercato IoT deve tuttavia affrontare, a causa della fram- mentazione di tecnologie e applicazioni utilizzate, diverse sfide legate all’interoperatibilita’, collegate alla necessita’ di una standardizzazione maggiormente specifica applicata all’infra- struttura IoT che tenga conto di vincoli e limitazioni delle applicazioni IoT. Tali questioni hanno radici nella necessita’ di un uso piu’ efficiente delle risorse disponibili nei sistemi IoT, a causa della limitatezza dei mezzi dovuta alla natura dei dispositivi IoT e ai vincoli imposti dalla capacita’ delle reti, le quali, d’altra parte, stimolano l’industria IoT ad appliccare differenti soluzioni volte all’efficienza di tali dispositivi su tali reti. Queste soluzioni mirano alla riduzione del traffico complessivo a livello della rete e al contempo a limitare l’utilizzo energetico e di memoria a livello del dispositivo. Con l’utilizzo di impostazioni ottimali sia per la rete che per il dispositivo il sistema IoT diventa in grado di fornire maggiori servizi a livello di applicazioni, i quali di conseguenza accelerano l’avvicinamento verso l’obiettivo dell’IoT. Una delle operazioni che influenzano l’efficienza a livello di dispositivo si trova nel meccanismo utilizzato nella strutturazione e serializzazione del carico di dati. In questa tesi, valutiamo un gruppo di meccanismi a base binaria sulla base della loro efficienza nel confrontarsi con dati dei sensor nodes con l’obiettivo di isolare le tecniche con il potenziale di essere standardizzate all’interno dell’infrastruttura IoT come protocolli interoperativi di data format. Contents Acknowledgments iv Abstract v Sommario vi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Context & Motivation . 1 1.2 Research Goals . 3 1.3 Thesis Structure . 4 2 Background 5 2.1 Internet of Things . 5 2.2 Key Features and Challenges . 6 2.3 The Internet of Things Architecture . 8 2.4 Connectivity Protocols/Standards . 9 2.5 Models . 13 2.6 Data Exchange Protocols . 16 2.7 Data Format Protocols . 18 2.7.1 Text-Based Protocols . 19 2.7.2 Binary-based Protocols . 21 3 Related Work 24 3.1 Data Exchange Protocols Evaluation . 24 3.2 Payload Optimization Approaches . 26 3.3 Comparative Discussion . 29 4 Binary Data Serialization in Sensor Nodes 31 4.1 Introduction and Case Statement . 31 4.2 Implemented Protocols . 32 vii 4.3 Performance Metrics . 34 4.3.1 Qualitative Analysis . 34 4.3.2 Quantitative Analysis . 35 5 Hardware Setup and Implementations 37 5.1 NodeMCU Specifications . 38 5.2 Arduino IDE . 39 5.3 Platform Configuration . 39 5.4 Protocol Buffers Implementation . 39 5.5 FlatBuffers Implementation . 40 5.6 MessagePack Implementation . 41 5.7 BSON Implementation . 42 6 Simulation Setup and Implementation 43 6.1 Contiki OS . 43 6.2 Cooja Simulator . 44 6.3 Simulation setup . 45 6.4 Benchmarking . 47 6.5 Nanopb (Protocol Buffers) . 50 6.6 FlatCC (FlatBuffers) . 50 6.7 CWPack (MessagePack) . 51 6.8 BINSON (BSON partial implementation) . 51 7 Experiments and Discussion 52 7.1 Payload Structure Types . 52 7.2 Hardware Runs . 54 7.3 Simulation Runs . 54 7.4 Results . 55 7.4.1 Hardware Results & Discussion . 55 7.4.2 Simulation Results & Discussion . 57 7.5 Qualitative Outlook . 61 8 Conclusions 63 8.1 Workflow Summary . 63 8.2 Critical Discussion . 64 8.3 Future Work . 66 viii List of Tables 7.1 Resulted Payload Size (H/W) . 55 7.2 Serialization Speed (H/W) . 55 7.3 Deserialization Speed (H/W) . 55 7.4 Total Speed Performance (H/W) . 56 7.5 Library Overhead (H/W) . 56 7.6 Total Payload Size (simulation) . 57 7.7 Serialization time (simulation) . 58 7.8 Deserialization time (simulation) . 58 7.9 Library Overhead (simulation) . 58 7.10 Memory Footprint - serialization (simulation) . 58 7.11 Memory Footprint - deserialization (simulation) . 59 7.12 Memory Footprint { Serialization with Deserialization (simulation) . 59 7.13 Average Power Consumption (simulation) . 60 7.14 Qualitative View . 62 ix List of Figures 2.1 IoT Verticals . 6 2.2 IoT Building Blocks . 8 2.3 IoT Application Model . 9 2.4 Bus-Based Model . 14 2.5 Broker-Based Model . 15 6.1 Size command outputs . 48 7.1 Visualizing Average Power Consumption . 61 x Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Context & Motivation Internet of Things has been the driving force behind the intelligence embedded in various environ- ments. These complex networks that connect millions of devices and people around the world is the backbone of \Industry 4.0" enabling fast and autonomous bi-directional data communication between machineries and devices. With its constant growth and incorporation into numerous and diverse industries, the expectations and figures of IoT applications and technologies show how it will become an essential infrastructure powering and driving people's daily activities and interactions due to the rapidly increasing number of connected \things". The capabilities and advancements of self-identification, localization, and data acquisition through positioning and sensing technologies remain at the heart of IoT-powered innovations. Substantially, sensor data constitutes the majority of the IoT business logic, since IoT appli- cations rely mainly on sensor data to effectively perform operations of monitoring, control, opti- mization that eventually enable automation capabilities paving the way of novel applications. In an IoT system, these sensor devices can be deployed via Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) where sensors communicate with each other either in a multi-hop or in a single-hop fashion relying on radio frequency mechanisms to exchange information and then send target data over the internet, or be deployed in a client/server architecture where each sensor node sends data to the application server over the internet that is then processed to offer various services to end-users such as smart parking, smart factory, and smart city applications. Regardless of the IoT system architecture, applications feed intensively on sensors' data and these data harvesting devices have resource constraints related to computing power, memory, energy consumption, and limited bandwidth tolerance. These constraints are due to the nature of sensor nodes that run on batteries and on low powered microprocessors and microcontrollers with limited memory and clock frequency. Also, for IoT environment setting, deployment, and operations to 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2 achieve the IoT vision and expectations, connected devices need to seamlessly communicate through low-bandwidth networks (e.g. 6LoWPAN) where the data link layer payload is extremely limited (e.g. 81 bytes in IEEE 802.15.4 link.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Document Databases, JSON, Mongodb 17
    MI-PDB, MIE-PDB: Advanced Database Systems http://www.ksi.mff.cuni.cz/~svoboda/courses/2015-2-MIE-PDB/ Lecture 13: Document Databases, JSON, MongoDB 17. 5. 2016 Lecturer: Martin Svoboda [email protected] Authors: Irena Holubová, Martin Svoboda Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague Course NDBI040: Big Data Management and NoSQL Databases Document Databases Basic Characteristics Documents are the main concept Stored and retrieved XML, JSON, … Documents are Self-describing Hierarchical tree data structures Can consist of maps, collections, scalar values, nested documents, … Documents in a collection are expected to be similar Their schema can differ Document databases store documents in the value part of the key-value store Key-value stores where the value is examinable Document Databases Suitable Use Cases Event Logging Many different applications want to log events Type of data being captured keeps changing Events can be sharded by the name of the application or type of event Content Management Systems, Blogging Platforms Managing user comments, user registrations, profiles, web-facing documents, … Web Analytics or Real-Time Analytics Parts of the document can be updated New metrics can be easily added without schema changes E-Commerce Applications Flexible schema for products and orders Evolving data models without expensive data migration Document Databases When Not to Use Complex Transactions Spanning Different Operations Atomic cross-document operations Some document databases do support (e.g., RavenDB) Queries against Varying Aggregate Structure Design of aggregate is constantly changing → we need to save the aggregates at the lowest level of granularity i.e., to normalize the data Document Databases Representatives Lotus Notes Storage Facility JSON JavaScript Object Notation Introduction • JSON = JavaScript Object Notation .
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Grid Serialization Comparison
    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Sep 28, 2021 Smart Grid Serialization Comparison Petersen, Bo Søborg; Bindner, Henrik W.; You, Shi; Poulsen, Bjarne Published in: Computing Conference 2017 Link to article, DOI: 10.1109/SAI.2017.8252264 Publication date: 2017 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Petersen, B. S., Bindner, H. W., You, S., & Poulsen, B. (2017). Smart Grid Serialization Comparison. In Computing Conference 2017 (pp. 1339-1346). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SAI.2017.8252264 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Computing Conference 2017 18-20 July 2017 | London, UK Smart Grid Serialization Comparision Comparision of serialization for distributed control in the context of the Internet of Things Bo Petersen, Henrik Bindner, Shi You Bjarne Poulsen DTU Electrical Engineering DTU Compute Technical University of Denmark Technical University of Denmark Lyngby, Denmark Lyngby, Denmark [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Communication between DERs and System to ensure that the control messages are received within a given Operators is required to provide Demand Response and solve timeframe, depending on the needs of the power grid.
    [Show full text]
  • Spindle Documentation Release 2.0.0
    spindle Documentation Release 2.0.0 Jorge Ortiz, Jason Liszka June 08, 2016 Contents 1 Thrift 3 1.1 Data model................................................3 1.2 Interface definition language (IDL)...................................4 1.3 Serialization formats...........................................4 2 Records 5 2.1 Creating a record.............................................5 2.2 Reading/writing records.........................................6 2.3 Record interface methods........................................6 2.4 Other methods..............................................7 2.5 Mutable trait...............................................7 2.6 Raw class.................................................7 2.7 Priming..................................................7 2.8 Proxies..................................................8 2.9 Reflection.................................................8 2.10 Field descriptors.............................................8 3 Custom types 9 3.1 Enhanced types..............................................9 3.2 Bitfields..................................................9 3.3 Type-safe IDs............................................... 10 4 Enums 13 4.1 Enum value methods........................................... 13 4.2 Companion object methods....................................... 13 4.3 Matching and unknown values...................................... 14 4.4 Serializing to string............................................ 14 4.5 Examples................................................. 14 5 Working
    [Show full text]
  • Rdf Repository Replacing Relational Database
    RDF REPOSITORY REPLACING RELATIONAL DATABASE 1B.Srinivasa Rao, 2Dr.G.Appa Rao 1,2Department of CSE, GITAM University Email:[email protected],[email protected] Abstract-- This study is to propose a flexible enable it. One such technology is RDF (Resource information storage mechanism based on the Description Framework)[2]. RDF is a directed, principles of Semantic Web that enables labelled graph for representing information in the information to be searched rather than queried. Web. This can be perceived as a repository In this study, a prototype is developed where without any predefined structure the focus is on the information rather than the The information stored in the traditional structure. Here information is stored in a RDBMS’s requires structure to be defined structure that is constructed on the fly. Entities upfront. On the contrary, information could be in the system are connected and form a graph, very complex to structure upfront despite the similar to the web of data in the Internet. This tremendous potential offered by the existing data is persisted in a peculiar way to optimize database systems. In the ever changing world, querying on this graph of data. All information another important characteristic of information relating to a subject is persisted closely so that in a system that impacts its structure is the reqeusting any information of a subject could be modification/enhancement to the system. This is handled in one call. Also, the information is a big concern with many software systems that maintained in triples so that the entire exist today and there is no tidy approach to deal relationship from subject to object via the with the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • CBOR (RFC 7049) Concise Binary Object Representation
    CBOR (RFC 7049) Concise Binary Object Representation Carsten Bormann, 2015-11-01 1 CBOR: Agenda • What is it, and when might I want it? • How does it work? • How do I work with it? 2 CBOR: Agenda • What is it, and when might I want it? • How does it work? • How do I work with it? 3 Slide stolen from Douglas Crockford History of Data Formats • Ad Hoc • Database Model • Document Model • Programming Language Model Box notation TLV 5 XML XSD 6 Slide stolen from Douglas Crockford JSON • JavaScript Object Notation • Minimal • Textual • Subset of JavaScript Values • Strings • Numbers • Booleans • Objects • Arrays • null Array ["Sunday", "Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday", "Thursday", "Friday", "Saturday"] [ [0, -1, 0], [1, 0, 0], [0, 0, 1] ] Object { "name": "Jack B. Nimble", "at large": true, "grade": "A", "format": { "type": "rect", "width": 1920, "height": 1080, "interlace": false, "framerate": 24 } } Object Map { "name": "Jack B. Nimble", "at large": true, "grade": "A", "format": { "type": "rect", "width": 1920, "height": 1080, "interlace": false, "framerate": 24 } } JSON limitations • No binary data (byte strings) • Numbers are in decimal, some parsing required • Format requires copying: • Escaping for strings • Base64 for binary • No extensibility (e.g., date format?) • Interoperability issues • I-JSON further reduces functionality (RFC 7493) 12 BSON and friends • Lots of “binary JSON” proposals • Often optimized for data at rest, not protocol use (BSON ➔ MongoDB) • Most are more complex than JSON 13 Why a new binary object format? • Different design goals from current formats – stated up front in the document • Extremely small code size – for work on constrained node networks • Reasonably compact data size – but no compression or even bit-fiddling • Useful to any protocol or application that likes the design goals 14 Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) 15 “Sea Boar” “Sea Boar” 16 Design goals (1 of 2) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • JSON JSON (Javascript Object Notation) Ecmascript Javascript
    ECMAScript JSON ECMAScript is standardized JavaScript. The current version is the 12th edition: Péter Jeszenszky Ecma International, ECMAScript 2021 Language Specification, Standard ECMA-262, 12th ed., June 2021. https://www.ecma- international.org/publications-and-standards/standards/ecma-262/ October 8, 2021 The next version currently under development is ECMAScript 2022: ECMAScript 2022 Language Specification https://tc39.es/ecma262/ Péter Jeszenszky JSON October 8, 2021 1 / 94 Péter Jeszenszky JSON October 8, 2021 3 / 94 JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) JavaScript Lightweight, textual, and platform independent data exchange format. Used for representing structured data. The term JavaScript is used for the implementations of ECMAScript by different vendors. Can be read and written easily by humans. See also: JavaScript technologies overview Can be generated and processed easily by computer programs. https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/JavaScript_technologies_overview Originates from the ECMAScript programming language. Website: https://www.json.org/ Péter Jeszenszky JSON October 8, 2021 2 / 94 Péter Jeszenszky JSON October 8, 2021 4 / 94 JavaScript Engines (1) Node.js (1) SpiderMonkey (written in: C/C++; license: Mozilla Public License 2.0) https://spidermonkey.dev/ A JavaScript runtime environment built on the V8 JavaScript engine The JavaScript engine of the Mozilla Project. that is designed to build scalable network applications. V8 (written in: C++; license: New BSD License) https://v8.dev/ Website: https://nodejs.org/ https://github.com/nodejs/node https://github.com/v8/v8/ License: MIT License The JavaScript engine of Chromium. Written in: C++, JavaScript JavaScriptCore (written in: C++; license: LGPLv2) https://developer.apple.com/documentation/javascriptcore https: Platform: Linux, macOS, Windows //github.com/WebKit/webkit/tree/master/Source/JavaScriptCore The JavaScript engine developed for the WebKit rendering engine.
    [Show full text]
  • Stupeflask Documentation
    Stupeflask Documentation Numberly Jan 20, 2020 Contents 1 Install 3 2 Comparison 5 3 Tests 7 4 License 9 5 Documentation 11 5.1 Better application defaults........................................ 11 5.2 Easier collection of configuration values................................. 13 5.3 Native ObjectId support......................................... 13 5.4 API Reference.............................................. 14 5.5 Cursor support.............................................. 18 6 Indices and tables 19 Python Module Index 21 Index 23 i ii Stupeflask Documentation a.k.a. « Flask on steroids » An opinionated Flask extension designed by and for web developers to reduce boilerplate code when working with Marshmallow, MongoDB and/or JSON. Documentation: https://flask-stupe.readthedocs.io • Return any object type in views, and it will be coerced to a flask.Response • Validate payloads through Marshmallow schemas • Easily add JSON converters for any custom type • Fetch all the blueprints from a whole module in one line • Native ObjectId support for both Flask and Marshmallow • Powerful configuration management • Decorators to handle authentication, permissions, and pagination • 100% coverage and no dependency Contents 1 Stupeflask Documentation 2 Contents CHAPTER 1 Install $ pip install flask-stupe 3 Stupeflask Documentation 4 Chapter 1. Install CHAPTER 2 Comparison Here is a comparison of a bare Flask application and its equivalent Stupeflask version. They both rely on MongoDB, handle input and output in JSON, and allow to create a user and retrieve
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced JSON Handling in Go 19:40 05 Mar 2020 Jonathan Hall Devops Evangelist / Go Developer / Clean Coder / Salsa Dancer About Me
    Advanced JSON handling in Go 19:40 05 Mar 2020 Jonathan Hall DevOps Evangelist / Go Developer / Clean Coder / Salsa Dancer About me Open Source contributor; CouchDB PMC, author of Kivik Core Tech Lead for Lana Former eCommerce Dev Manager at Bugaboo Former backend developer at Teamwork.com Former backend developer at Booking.com Former tech lead at eFolder/DoubleCheck 2 Show of hands Who has... ...used JSON in a Go program? ...been frustrated by Go's strict typing when dealing with JSON? ...felt limited by Go's standard JSON handling? What have been your biggest frustrations? 3 Today's Topics Very brief intro to JSON in Go Basic use of maps and structs Handling inputs of unknown type Handling data with some unknown fields 4 A brief intro to JSON JavaScript Object Notation, defined by RFC 8259 Human-readable, textual representation of arbitrary data Limted types: null, Number, String, Boolean, Array, Object Broad applications: Config files, data interchange, simple messaging 5 Alternatives to JSON YAML, TOML, INI BSON, MessagePack, CBOR, Smile XML ProtoBuf Custom/proprietary formats Many principles discussed in this presentation apply to any of the above formats. 6 Marshaling JSON Creating JSON from a Go object is (usually) very straight forward: func main() { x := map[string]string{ "foo": "bar", } data, _ := json.Marshal(x) fmt.Println(string(data)) } Run 7 Marshaling JSON, #2 Creating JSON from a Go object is (usually) very straight forward: func main() { type person struct { Name string `json:"name"` Age int `json:"age"` Description string `json:"descr,omitempty"` secret string // Unexported fields are never (un)marshaled } x := person{ Name: "Bob", Age: 32, secret: "Shhh!", } data, _ := json.Marshal(x) fmt.Println(string(data)) } Run 8 Unmarshaling JSON Unmarshaling JSON is often a bit trickier.
    [Show full text]
  • JSON As an XML Alternative
    JSON The Fat-Free Alternative to XML { “Lecture”: 27, “Course”: “CSC375”, “Days”: ”TTh", “Instructor”: “Haidar Harmanani” } JSON as an XML Alternative • JSON is a light-weight alternative to XML for data- interchange • JSON = JavaScript Object Notation – It’s really language independent – most programming languages can easily read it and instantiate objects or some other data structure • Defined in RFC 4627 • Started gaining tracking ~2006 and now widely used • http://json.org/ has more information JSON as an XML Alternative • What is JSON? – JSON is language independent – JSON is "self-describing" and easy to understand – *JSON uses JavaScript syntax for describing data objects, but JSON is still language and platform independent. JSON parsers and JSON libraries exists for many different programming languages. • JSON -Evaluates to JavaScript Objects – The JSON text format is syntactically identical to the code for creating JavaScript objects. – Because of this similarity, instead of using a parser, a JavaScript program can use the built-in eval() function and execute JSON data to produce native JavaScript objects. Example {"firstName": "John", l This is a JSON object "lastName" : "Smith", "age" : 25, with five key-value pairs "address" : l Objects are wrapped by {"streetAdr” : "21 2nd Street", curly braces "city" : "New York", "state" : "NY", l There are no object IDs ”zip" : "10021"}, l Keys are strings "phoneNumber": l Values are numbers, [{"type" : "home", "number": "212 555-1234"}, strings, objects or {"type" : "fax", arrays "number” : "646 555-4567"}] l Aarrays are wrapped by } square brackets The BNF is simple When to use JSON? • SOAP is a protocol specification for exchanging structured information in the implementation of Web Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Used in Cisco DNA Center Release 1.3.X
    Open Source Used In Cisco DNA Center NXP 1.3.1.0 Cisco Systems, Inc. www.cisco.com Cisco has more than 200 offices worldwide. Addresses, phone numbers, and fax numbers are listed on the Cisco website at www.cisco.com/go/offices. Text Part Number: 78EE117C99-201847078 Open Source Used In Cisco DNA Center 1.3.1.0 1 This document contains licenses and notices for open source software used in this product. With respect to the free/open source software listed in this document, if you have any questions or wish to receive a copy of any source code to which you may be entitled under the applicable free/open source license(s) (such as the GNU Lesser/General Public License), please contact us at [email protected]. In your requests please include the following reference number 78EE117C99-201847078 Contents 1.1 1to2 1.0.0 1.1.1 Available under license 1.2 @amcharts/amcharts3-react 2.0.7 1.2.1 Available under license 1.3 @babel/code-frame 7.0.0 1.3.1 Available under license 1.4 @babel/highlight 7.0.0 1.4.1 Available under license 1.5 @babel/runtime 7.3.4 1.5.1 Available under license 1.6 @mapbox/geojson-types 1.0.2 1.6.1 Available under license 1.7 @mapbox/mapbox-gl-style-spec 13.3.0 1.7.1 Available under license 1.8 @mapbox/mapbox-gl-supported 1.4.0 1.8.1 Available under license 1.9 @mapbox/whoots-js 3.1.0 1.9.1 Available under license 1.10 abab 2.0.0 1.10.1 Available under license 1.11 abbrev 1.1.1 1.11.1 Available under license 1.12 abbrev 1.1.0 1.12.1 Available under license 1.13 absurd 0.3.9 1.13.1 Available under license
    [Show full text]
  • Better Than Protocol Buffers
    Better Than Protocol Buffers Grouty Jae never syntonises so pridefully or proselytise any centenarian senselessly. Rawish Ignacius whenreindustrializes eastwardly his Bentley deepening hummings awake gruesomely credulously. and Rab pragmatically. usually delights furthest or devoiced mundanely Er worden alleen cookies on windows successfully reported this variable on tag per field encoding than protocol buffers, vs protocol buffers Protocol buffers definitely seem like protocol buffers objects have to. Strong supporter of STEM education. Then i objectively agree to better than json with. There is, of course, a catch: The results can only be used as part of a new request sent to the same server. Avro is a clear loser. Add Wisdom Geek to your Homescreen! Google may forecast the Protocol Buffers performance in their future version. Matches my approach and beliefs. To keep things simple a ass is situate in hebrew new frameworks. These different protocols that protocol buffers and better this role does this technology holding is doing exactly what. Proto files which i comment if you want to better than jdk integer should check when constrained to. How can Use Instagram? The JSON must be serialized and converted into the target programming language both on the server side and client side. Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox. Sound off how much better than protocol. This broad a wildly inaccurate statement. Protobuf protocol buffers are better than words, we developed in json on protocols to medium members are sending data access key and its content split into many languages? That project from descriptor objects that this makes use packed binary encodings, you are nice, none of defence and just an attacker to.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient XML Interchange for Afloat Networks
    LT Bruce Hill MAKING BIG FILES SMALL AND SMALL FILES TINY 1 XML and JSON ● JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) is a common alternative to XML in web applications ● JSON is a plaintext data-interchange format based on JavaScript code ● JSON has compact binary encodings analogous to EXI: ○ CBOR ○ BSON ● Research Question: Is EXI more compact than CBOR and BSON? 2 EXI for Large XML Files ● W3C and previous NPS research measured EXI performance on XML up to 100MB ● Large data dumps can easily exceed that ● Research Question: How does EXI (but not CBOR/BSON) perform on files from 100MB - 4GB? 3 Methods Use Case Focus Configuration Focus ● Compression results ● EXI has many across multiple use configuration options cases look different from that affect results for multiple files ● Compactness within a single use case ● Processing speed ● Select a few use cases ● Memory footprint ● Fidelity and study them in-depth ● XML Schema affects EXI compression as well 4 Encodings Compared Small Files Large Files When in doubt, try every possible combination of options 5 Small-file Use Cases (B to KB) ● OpenWeatherMap ● Automated Identification ● Global Position System System (AIS) XML (GPX) 6 AIS Use Case EXI smaller than CBOR/BSON, aggregating data helps 7 AIS Use Case Well-designed XML Schema improves performance 8 Large-file Use Cases (KB to GB) ● Digital Forensics XML ● Packet Description (DFXML) Markup Language ● OpenStreetMap (PDML) 9 PDML Use Case EXI performs well on large files, aggregation benefits plateau 10 EXI and MS Office ● Microsoft Office is ubiquitous in Navy/DoD ● Since 2003, the file format has been a Zipped archive of many small XML files ● Since 2006, the file format has been an open standard ● Since 2013, MS Office 365 can save in compliant format ● Tools such as NXPowerLite target excess image resolution and metadata to shrink them ● EXI can target the remainder..
    [Show full text]