you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

It's a potential single point of failure. Which have experienced first hand. The rest of the app could not run cuz a non-essential piece was non-operable due to the missing compiled message definitions file or message definitions file was updated but not compiled.

So protobuf carries a non-zero risk.

Could the app have been designed without an essential exploding binary blob? Most definitely yes!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    project cost = sigma(1...n)(risk likelihood of occurring * risk cost), but we aren't discussing every possible risk. Only the one risk.

    The risk of having to:

    • for the app to work, requires compiled components
    • having to be familiar with setup.py. This is referred to as the sewer, which is what is targeted by hackers e.g. xv
    • maintainers who come later being familiar and can maintain packages that incorporate other languages e.g. C or rust
    • possibly neglecting to perform the compile (but lets ignore this)
    • compiler runs a binary written and maintained by the spy agency Google

    or

    Just not doing that

    The only justification for going with protoc, over other methods, could only come down to data serialization speed. But in that case, wouldn't a rust solution be: not only as fast, but also much safer.

  • source
  • parent