From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88671BBAF for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 21:14:54 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8DAItD20nQRG8ZgWdsb2JhbACWIAEBFiK5EoN7Bg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,338,1235948400"; d="scan'208";a="25830179" Received: from mx01.metaweb.com ([208.68.111.25]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with SMTP; 07 Apr 2009 21:14:18 +0200 Received: from zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx01.metaweb.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E5B4618E90C for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com (zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com [172.29.253.13]) by mx01.metaweb.com with ESMTP id gwLtMlbm3SLutT6d for ; Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D48160C070 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:12:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at Received: from zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lV+QCFSfM0Wm for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.30] (ipsec-250-81.corp.vpn.metaweb.com [172.29.250.81]) by zimbra01.corp.sjc1.metaweb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3C5160C06E for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: Warren Harris To: OCaml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: camomile vs netstring Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:12:47 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Spam: no; 0.00; camomile:01 netstring:01 summarize:01 trade-offs:01 camomile:01 netstring:01 ocamlnet-:01 implements:01 arrays:01 encodes:01 trade-offs:01 warren:98 warren:98 cliff:98 int:01 Can anyone summarize the trade-offs between the Camomile and Netstring =20= (netconversion) unicode translation libraries? The netconversion =20 documentation = (http://projects.camlcity.org/projects/dl/ocamlnet-2.2.9/doc/html-main/Net= conversion.html=20 ) mentions that Camomile implements text strings as int arrays, =20 whereas it encodes them as packed native strings... so I'm guessing =20 that Netstring is a win space-wise when random access isn't needed. =20 However, are there other trade-offs to be aware of -- bugs, other =20 performance issues, ease of use? Camomile seems to provide a larger =20 number of conversions, but I have no idea whether these are actually =20 useful, or simply legacy artifacts. I think my unicode needs are fairly simple, but then again, maybe =20 everyone thinks that as they're diving off this cliff. :-) Warren -- Warren Harris warren@metaweb.com Metaweb Technologies http://www.freebase.com - An open database of the world=92s information.