In our business, we require to log every request/response which coming to our server.
At this time being, we are using xml as standard implementation.
Log files are used if we need to debug/trace some error.
I am kind of curious if we switch to protocol buffers, since it is binary, what will be the best way to log request/response to file?
For example:
FileOutputStream output = new FileOutputStream("\\files\log.txt");
request.build().writeTo(outout);
For anyone who has used protocol buffers in your application, how do you log your request/response, just in case we need it for debugging purpose?
TL;DR: write debugging logs in text, write long-term logs in binary.
There are at least two ways you can do this logging (and maybe, in fact, you should do both):
Writing your logs in text format. This is good for debugging and quickly checking for problems with your eyes.
Writing your logs in binary format - this will make future analysis much quicker since you can load the data using same protocol buffers code and do all kinds of things on them.
Quite honestly, this is more or less the way this is done at the place this technology came from.
We use the ShortDebugString() method on the C++ object to write down a human-readable version of all incoming and outgoing messages to a text-file. ShortDebugString() returns a one-line version of the same string returned by the toString() method in Java. Not sure how easy it is to accomplish the same thing in Java.
If you have competing needs for logging and performance then I suppose you could dump your binary data to the file as-is, with perhaps each record preceded by a tag containing a timestamp and a length value so you'll know where this particular bit of data ends. But I hasten to admit this is very ugly. You will need to write a utility to read and analyze this file, and will be helpless without that utility.
A more reasonable solution would be to dump your binary data in text form. I'm thinking of "lines" of text, again starting with whatever tagging information you find relevant, followed by some length information in decimal or hex, followed by as many hex bytes as needed to dump your buffer - thus you could end up with some fairly long lines. But since the file is line structured, you can use text-oriented tools (an editor in the simplest case) to work with it. Hex dumping essentially means you are using two bytes in the log to represent one byte of data (plus a bit of overhead). Heh, disk space is cheap these days.
If those binary buffers have a fairly consistent structure, you could even break out and label fields (or something like that) so your data becomes a little more human readable and, more importantly, better searchable. Of course it's up to you how much effort you want to sink into making your log records look pretty; but the time spent here may well pay off a little later in analysis.
If you've non-ASCII character strings in your messages, simply logging them by using implicit or explicit call to toString would escape the characters.
"오늘은 무슨 요일입니까?" becomes "\354\230\244\353\212\230\354\235\200 \353\254\264\354\212\250 \354\232\224\354\235\274\354\236\205\353\213\210\352\271\214?"
If you want to retain the non-ASCII characters, use TextFormat.printer().escapingNonAscii(false).printToString(message).
See this answer for more details.
Related
Just switching from Python2 to Python3 and the new string system is a real pain (or rather I'm not understanding its true benefit).
Is there any way to make it default to the old style bytes system without having to put a b before every string. I send a lot of commands via sockets and the code looks just ugly - i.e.
conn.sendall(b'k\n')
I tend to use this more than I worry about unicode
No, there isn't. And from what I gather you don't think it is a pain, and you do understand the benefit, you just think the b'' is ugly, which doesn't seem to be a very good reason to me.
Separating binary and text data is a great simplification in almost all cases. The need to prefix binary data with a b is a small price to pay for that.
I was finally able to write protocol buffers code over REST and did some comparison with XStream which we are currently uses.
Everything seems great, only stumble with one thing.
We have very large messages in one particular attributes, say something like this
message Data {
optional string datavalue=1;
}
Datavalue above are extremely huge text messages. Size is 512kb - 5 Mb.
Protocol buffers deserialize just fine, with superb performance comparing to XStream.
However, I notice when I send this message to wire (via REST), it took longer to get response. Always twice longer than XStream.
I am thinking this might come from serializing time.
From google documents, it says Protocol buffers is not designed to handle very large messages, although it can handle very large data set.
I was wondering if anyone has some opinion or maybe solution from my case above?
Thanks
I was benchmarking different serialization tools a while ago and noticed that the Protobuf Java library took about 1.7x as long to serialize strings as java.io.DataOutputStream did. When I looked into it, it seemed to have to do with weird artifact of how the JVM optimizes certain code paths. However, in my benchmarking, XStream was always slower, even with really long strings.
One quick thing to try is the format-compatible Protostuff library in place of Google's Protobuf library.
I remember reading somewhere (trying to locate the article) that protobuf is very good if you have a mix of binary and textual data types. When you are working purely on textual data then you could get better performance and size by compressing it.
What is the advantage of using Base64 encode?
I would like to understand it better. Do I really need it? Can't I simply use pure strings?
I heard that the encoding can be up to 30% larger than the original (at least for images).
Originally some protocols only allowed 7 bit, and sometimes only 6 bit, data.
Base64 allows one to encode 8 bit data into 6 bits for transmission on those types of links.
Email is an example of this.
The primary use case of base64 encoding is when you want to store or transfer data with a restricted set of characters; i.e. when you can't pass an arbitrary value in each byte.
<img alt="Embedded Image"
src="..." />
This code will show encoded image, but no one can link to this image from another website and use your traffic.
Base64 decode
The advantages of Base64 encode, like somebody said, are available to transmit data from binary, into (most commonly) ASCII characters. Due to the likeliness that the receiving end can handle ASCII, it makes it a nice way to transfer binary data, via a text stream.
If your situation can handle native binary data, that will most likely yield better results, in terms of speed and such, but if not, Base64 is most likely the way to go. JSON is a great example of when you would benefit from something like this, or when it needs to be stored in a text field somewhere. Give us some more details and we can provide a better tailored answer.
One application is to transfer binary data in contexts where only characters are allowed. E.g. in XML documents/transfers. XML-RPC is an example of this.
Convert BLOB data to string and back...
Whether or not to use it depends on what you're using it for.
I've used it mostly for encoding binary data to pass through a mechanism that has really been created for text files. For example - when passing a digital certificate request around or retrieving the finished digital certificate -- in those cases, it's often very convenient to pass the binary data as Base 64 via a text field on a web form.
I probably wouldn't use it if you have something that is already text and you just want to pass it somewhere.
I use it for passing around files that tend to get chewed up by email programs because they look like text files (e.g. HL7 transcripts for replay).
How does one combine several resources for an application (images, sounds, scripts, xmls, etc.) into a single/multiple binary file so that they're protected from user's hands? What are the typical steps (organizing, loading, encryption, etc...)?
This is particularly common in game development, yet a lot of the game frameworks and engines out there don't provide an easy way to do this, nor describe a general approach. I've been meaning to learn how to do it, but I don't know where to begin. Could anyone point me in the right direction?
There are lots of ways to do this. m_pGladiator has some good ideas, especially with seralization. I would like to make a few other comments.
First, if you are going to pack a bunch of resources into a single file (I call these packfiles), then I think that you should work to avoid loading the whole file and then deseralizing out of that file into memory. The simple reason is that it's more memory. That's really not a problem on PC's I guess, but it's good practice, and it's essential when working on the console. While we don't (currently) serialize objects as m_pGladiator has suggested, we are moving towards that.
There are two types of packfiles that you might have. One would be a file where you want arbitrary access to the contents of the files. A second type might be a collection of files where you need all of those files when loading a level. A basic example might be:
An audio packfile might contain all the audio for your game. You might only need to load certain kinds of audio for the menus or interface screens and different sets of audio for the levels. This might fall intot he first category above.
A type that falls into the second category might be all models/textures/etc for a level. You basically want to load the entire contents of this file into the game at load time because you will (likely) need all of it's contents while a player is playing that level or section.
many of the packfiles that we build fall into the second category. We basically package up the level contents, and then compresses them with something like zlib. When we load one of these at game time, we read a small amount of the file, uncompress what we've read into a memory buffer, and then repeat until the full file has been read into memory. The buffer we read into is relatively small while final destination buffer is large enough to hold the largest set of uncompressed data that we need. This method is tricky, but again, it saves on RAM, it's an interesting exercise to get working, and you feel all nice and warm inside because you are being a good steward of system resources. once the packfile has been completely uncompressed into it's destinatino buffer, we run a final pass on the buffer to fix up pointer locations, etc. This method only works when you write out your packfile as structures that the game knows. In other words, our packfile writing tools share struct (or classses) with the game code. We are basically writing out and compressing exact representations of data structures.
If you simply want to cut down on the number of files that you are shipping and installing on a users machine, you can do with something like the first kind of packfile that I describe. Maybe you have 1000s of textures and would just simply like to cut down on the sheer number of files that you have to zip up and package. You can write a small utility that will basically read the files that you want to package together and then write a header containing the files and their offsets in the packfile, and then you can write the contents of the file, one at a time, one after the other, in your large binary file. At game time, you can simply load the header of this packfile and store the filenames and offsets in a hash. When you need to read a file, you can hash the filename and see if it exists in your packfile, and if so, you can read the contents directly from the packfile by seeking to the offset and then reading from that location in the packfile. Again, this method is basically a way to pack data together without regards for encryption, etc. It's simply an organizational method.
But again, I do want to stress that if you are going a route like I or m_pGladiator suggests, I would work hard to not have to pull the whole file into RAM and then deserialize to another location in RAM. That's a waste of resources (that you perhaps have plenty of). I would say that you can do this to get it working, and then once it's working, you can work on a method that only reads part of the file at a time and then decompresses to your destination buffer. You must use a comprsesion scheme that will work like this though. zlib and lzw both do (I believe). I'm not sure about an MD5 algorithm.
Hope that this helps.
do as Java: pack it all in a zip, and use an filesystem-like API to read directly from there.
Personally, I never used the already available tools to do that. If you want to prevent your game to be hacked easily, then you have to develop your own resource manipulation engine.
First of all read about serializing objects. When you load a resource from file (graphic, sound or whatever), it is stored in some object instance in the memory. A game usually uses dozens of graphical and sound objects. You have to make a tool, which loads them all and stores them in collections in the memory. Then serialize those collections into a binary file and you have every resource there.
Then you can use for example MD5 or any other encryption algorithm to encrypt this file.
Also, you can use zlib or other compression library to make this big binary file a bit smaller.
In the game, you should load the encrypted binary file and unpack it. Then decrypt it. Then deserialize the object collections and you have all resources back in memory.
Of course you can make this more comprehensive by storing in different binary files the resources for different levels and so on - there are plenty of variants, depending on what you want. Also you can first zip, then encrypt, or make other combinations of the steps.
Short answer: yes.
In Mac OS 6,7,8 there was a substantial API devoted to this exact task. Lookup the "Resource Manager" if you are interested. Edit: So does the ROOT physics analysis package.
Not that I know of a good tool right now. What platform(s) do you want it to work on?
Edited to add: All of the two-or-three tools of this sort that I am away of share a similar struture:
The file starts with a header and index
There are a series of blocks some of which may have there own headers and indicies, some of which are leaves
Each leaf is a simple serialization of the data to be stored.
The whole file (or sometimes individual blocks) may be compressed.
Not terribly hard to implement your own, but I'd look for a good existing one that meets your needs first.
For future people, like me, who are wondering about this same topic, check out the two following links:
http://www.sfml-dev.org/wiki/en/tutorials/formatdat
http://archive.gamedev.net/reference/programming/features/pak/
So, to simplify my life I want to be able to append from 1 to 7 additional characters on the end of some jpg images my program is processing*. These are dummy padding (fillers, etc - probably all 0x00) just to make the file size a multiple of 8 bytes for block encryption.
Having tried this out with a few programs, it appears they are fine with the additional characters, which occur after the FF D9 that specifies the end of the image - so it appears that the file format is well defined enough that the 'corruption' I'm adding at the end shouldn't matter.
I can always post process the files later if needed, but my preference is to do the simplest thing possible - which is to let them remain (I'm decrypting other file types and they won't mind, so having a special case is annoying).
I figure with all the talk of Steganography hullaballo years ago, someone has some input here...
(encryption processing by 8 byte blocks, I don't want to save pre-encrypted file size, so append 0x00 to input data, and leave them there after decoding)
No, you can add bits to the end of a jpg file, without making it unusable. The heading of the jpg file tells how to read it, so the program reading it will stop at the end of the jpg data.
In fact, people have hidden zip files inside jpg files by appending the zip data to the end of the jpg data. Because of the way these formats are structured, the resulting file is valid in either format.
You can .. but the results may be unpredictable.
Even though there is enough information in the format to tell the client to ignore the extra data it is likely not a case the programmer tested for.
A paranoid program might look at the size, notice the discrepancy and decide it won't process your file because clearly it doesn't fully understand it. This is particularly likely when reading data from the web when random bytes in a file could be considered a security risk.
You can embed your data in the XMP tag within a JPEG (or EXIF or IPTC fields for that matter).
XMP is XML so you have a fair bit of flexibility there to do you own custom stuff.
It's probably not the simplest thing possible but putting your data here will maintain the integrity of the JPEG and require no "post processing".
You data will then show up in other imaging software such as PhotoShop, which may not be ideal.
As others have stated, you have no control how programs process image files and therefore some programs may find the images valid others may not.
However, there is a bigger issue here. Judging by your question, I'm deducing you're practicing "security through obscurity." It's widely considered a very bad practice. Use Google to find a plethora of articles about the topic.