I'm the main competitor, so take me with a grain of salt here.
The docs don't look very detailed, but taking a quick look through...
> "On purpose, the format leaves a lot of details about where exactly things live in memory undefined, e.g. fields in a table can have any order... To be able to access fields regardless of these uncertainties, we go through a vtable of offsets. Vtables are shared between any objects that happen to have the same vtable values."
Hrm, that sounds like a lot of complexity and a big performance hit. In order to read a field from a struct, you have to do a vtable lookup to find the offset? Maybe you can still get that done in an inline accessor, but it will make the optimizer sad.
How is de-duping of vtables accomplished? It doesn't look like the API exposes any details about vtables, meaning you'd have to do it magically behind the scenes, which seems expensive?
It looks like the authors may have been trying to maintain the concept of "optional fields" from Protobufs, where if you don't set an optional field, it takes zero bytes on the wire. But the main use of optional fields in practice is to implement unions -- i.e. a list of fields where only one should be filled in at a time.
Cap'n Proto's solution to this was just to build unions into the language, something Protobufs should have done a long time ago.
> "FlatBuffers relies on new field declarations being added at the end, and earlier declarations to not be removed, but be marked deprecated when needed. We think this is an improvement over the manual number assignment that happens in Protocol Buffers."
That's not an improvement at all. Declarations should be ordered semantically, so that related things go together. More importantly, even if you say that they can't be, developers will still do it, and will accidentally introduce incompatibilities. To make matters worse, it tends to be hard to detect these issues in testing, because your tests are probably build from the latest code. Simply adding field numbers as in Protobufs and Cap'n Proto has proven an effective solution to this in practice.
Very surprised to see Google get this wrong, since they have more experience with this than anyone.
> Benchmarks
I couldn't find the benchmark code in the github repo, so it's hard to say what they may be measuring here. FlatBuffers presumably shares Cap'n Proto's property that encodes and decodes take zero time, which makes it hard to create a meaningful benchmark in the first place. Indeed the numbers they put up kind of look like they're timing a noop loop. I can't see how the "traverse" time could be so much better than with protobufs, which makes me think the code might be written in such a way that the compiler was able to optimize away all the traverse time for FlatBuffers because it thought the results were unused anyway -- a mistake that's easy to make.
But I'd love to see the code to verify. Hopefully I just missed it when digging through the repo.
Clearly, FlatBuffers seeks a different design tradeoff than Cap'n Proto. We wanted to retain all the flexibility of Protobufs, while having the advantages of the "zero parsing / zero allocation" approach. That brought us to the vtable design.
In use cases where performance matters, i.e. you are churning through a large amount of data, you will be accessing the same vtable repeatedly, and the cost of the extra indirection (and the code associated with it) will be masked by the memory latency of the main data you're going through. It will be (close to) "for free". Even in cases where that isn't the case, whether or not it is able to match Cap'n Proto's accessor code is less interesting than it being endlessly faster than Protobuf and most other serializers out there, given that it is just as flexible.
vtables are de-duped on the fly during construction. It is typically not expensive.
Note this tiny overhead holds for "tables", we also have naked "structs", which do not have the indirection overhead, but have no forwards/backwards compatability. Useful for things like 2d/3d vector types, colors, and other small POD types that are used a lot.
FlatBuffers also has unions, which you should use instead of optionals when appropriate. We feel optionals have a lot of uses beyond just mere unions and forwards/backwards compatibility, however. Game objects can have a LOT of fields, many of which are often at their default value, and thus not stored on the wire. This gives significant compression. The zero-byte compression in Cap'n Proto is cool, but we prefer to not have to use additional buffers when reading. Optionals also give a lot of design freedom, i.e. you can add a field that you know is only needed for very few instances without fear of bloating your binaries, as an alternative to "subclassing", or indeed unions.
On field declaration order: to each his own, I guess. That said, the omission of explicit field id's is something that's handled at the level of the schema compiler, we could easily allow optional id declarations in the schema for people who want the flexibility of declaring things in an arbitrary order. Noted.
We should clean up the benchmark code, so it can be included, yes. It is not running a noop loop, we made sure of that. I haven't verified what makes Protobuf traversal that much slower, I am guessing it's causing a memory allocation somewhere.
Which is an OK trade-off for certain situations (like reading your game data from disk). But... not for any kind of secure network protocol.
Maybe I'm missing something, though. I've only been looking at this for a few minutes.
Although in some cases this is how your fancy-pants console security gets busted. See: http://www.wiibrew.org/wiki/Twilight_Hack
(I realize you said "game data" and not "savegame data", but I think safe file reading is important pretty much everywhere)
That said, an option to bounds-check every offset would be possible, at a certain cost. Might be a nice optional feature to have.
I think the key use case for FlatBuffers is mostly for very-high-performance communication between a set of processes that you control to scale out high-performance systems into distributed systems while keeping the communication overhead minimal, not for, e.g., communicating between untrusted machines over a public network. So, I don't see that as a huge problem in the key use case.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and when I skimmed the rest of the page this "confirmed" my suspicions: "Time-traveling RPC: Cap’n Proto features an RPC system implements time travel such that call results are returned to the client before the request even arrives at the server!". I'm familiar with promise pipelining but that sentence (and diagram) made it sound like a complete joke.
Go has a similar vibe although more subdued, with the funny mascot and opinionated culture.
> Cap'n Proto's solution to this was just to build unions into the language, something Protobufs should have done a long time ago.
This has been implemented internally; the next open-source release should have it.
Oh cool! Presumably based on the patch I wrote before I left? :)
Many of SBE's unusual properties (such as permitting new fields only at the end of a structure) are designed to maximize performance during streaming decoding.
> permitting new fields only at the end of a structure
Be careful not to conflate the order of fields as written in the schema with the order of fields on the wire. Cap'n Proto (like SBE) more or less requires new fields to go on the end on the wire, but lets you put them in any order in the schema. FlatBuffer apparently requires them to go on the end in the schema but lets you put them in any order on the wire.
(I say "more or less" because Cap'n Proto can actually stick a new field into what was previously padding space between two existing fields. But usually new fields go on the end.)
:)
Is the key here that the input gets copied into memory directly without CPU intervention?
Meanwhile, in networking, there is RDMA, which indeed allows memory to be transferred over the network without involving the CPU on either end.
But even ignoring those things, memory bandwidth is actually a big reason why you should not want to transform things upfront. You see, if you have an upfront transformation, you're streaming the data into the CPU, then back out in the new format, and then reading it back in again later on when you actually use it. If your data is small enough, perhaps it all stays in cache and this isn't an issue. But if it's large, then you're doubling or tripling your memory bandwidth usage by having a decode step.
In any case, the fact is that there are lots of real servers out there that are CPU bound and spend double-digit percentages of their time encoding and decoding Protobufs.
Unions? Like the ones RPC has had since time immemorial [1]? Funny how everything old is new again.
[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa36...
The other problem is that Google tends to release random stuff as open source and then modify it (breaking BC) or abandon it without regard for the people who are using it.
So caveat emptor, I guess.
"Cap'n'Proto promises to reduce Protocol Buffers much like FlatBuffers does, though with a more complicated binary encoding and less flexibility (no optional fields to allow deprecating fields or serializing with missing fields for which defaults exist). It currently also isn't fully cross-platform portable (lack of VS support)."
"Optional" fields (ones that don't take space on the wire at all) are not clearly much of an advantage. The usual use of optional fields in Protobufs was to emulate unions, which Protobufs itself never supported directly, but Cap'n Proto does. Also, when wire size really matters, Cap'n Proto offers a very fast compression pass which deflates zeros, and unset fields are always zero, largely mitigating this issue.
The lack of VS support in Cap'n Proto is of course a very fair criticism, and a huge sore point in Cap'n Proto adoption. MSVC is finally catching up in its C++11 support so I hope this can be solved soon.
(Disclosure: I'm the author of Cap'n Proto, and also the former maintainer of Protocol Buffers.)
Guessing from the name I expected FlatBuffers to be a unified file format for on-disk and on-RAM presence, so that you can just mmap the disk file and you have the data-structure in memory. No need to translate between on disk and on disk representations. I am not claiming that it is so, this is what I expected it to be, given the name. But after spending some time looking around I am still confused if that's what it is. Would appreciate confirmation either way. Have to look at the code when I get around to it.
I have an use case in mind for a tree of appendable/insertable matrices. HDf5 comes close, but isnt quite what I am looking for.
EDIT @vertex-four thanks for the clarification much appreciated.
No. It's a serialisation format that's specifically designed so that data structures in this format can be used as-is by programs, without unnecessarily copying data into or out of the format to use it. The RPC layer is then built on top of that, but the format could also be used for mmapped files, etc.
Oh I'm also a fan of Kenton's in case it matters :-)
"Wouter van Oortmerssen is a humorous guy preferring strange names for his programming languages and often also programming examples."
