Hey guys, I am at the point in our project where the groundwork is in place and I have a question. Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but we are using SmartFox 1.6 and sending messages as pure string values like so:
x:120:70:45
We then tokenize the string on each end based on the ":" character to get the values, so first entry in the list would be a 1-2 character keyword and based on that we extract the values, so example above could be a player position update.
Now this is pretty small, which I like, but I was wondering if there was any performance gain with SmartFox 2X. I heard there is a binary protocol? Does this actually send it in a compressed binary message, or does it send the binary values as a string? As ascii the binary looks like:
011110000011101000110001001100100011000000111010
0011011100110000001110100011010000110101
Which is way more bloated than the pure text example above. So yeah, some insight on this would be much appreciated! Thanks guys!
SmartFox 2X vs SmartFox 1.6.x
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 14:03
- Location: South Pasadena California
- Contact:
Re: SmartFox 2X vs SmartFox 1.6.x
I don't understand your example.
In SFS PRO you don't need to tokenize the data, the work is already done for you by the protocol.
Under SFS2X the data is purely binary and it is compressed when it's necessary, according to packet threshold configured in the system.
The binary example you provide is not clear. It sounds like you assume that every bit is sent as a separate character which is obviously incorrect.
You probably need to review how data is represented in binary form. Google will come to rescue
More details on the SFS2X protocol VS SFSPRO are found here:
http://docs2x.smartfoxserver.com/Overvi ... x-protocol
In SFS PRO you don't need to tokenize the data, the work is already done for you by the protocol.
Under SFS2X the data is purely binary and it is compressed when it's necessary, according to packet threshold configured in the system.
The binary example you provide is not clear. It sounds like you assume that every bit is sent as a separate character which is obviously incorrect.
You probably need to review how data is represented in binary form. Google will come to rescue
More details on the SFS2X protocol VS SFSPRO are found here:
http://docs2x.smartfoxserver.com/Overvi ... x-protocol
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 14:03
- Location: South Pasadena California
- Contact:
Re: SmartFox 2X vs SmartFox 1.6.x
Hey Lapo, yep I was unclear about it but thank you for the response. So just to clarify, the binary protocol would send data more compressed than raw string method, correct? I was hoping it would but just want to make sure before we make the jump and switch to SmartFox 2X.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 14:03
- Location: South Pasadena California
- Contact:
Re: SmartFox 2X vs SmartFox 1.6.x
Thanks Lapo!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Stevenor and 53 guests