That works for me. Cheers, alan
On Oct 28, 2:40 pm, "Kenton Varda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The model used by the protocol compiler is to assume that the .proto files > are located in a tree that parallels the Python package tree. We don't want > to get into relative imports because they can get complicated and > error-prone. > If you don't want to put your .proto files into a tree matching your Python > package tree, you could alternatively map them into such a tree virtually > like so: > > protoc --proto_path=mypkg=proto > > This maps the virtual directory "mypkg" to the physical directory "proto". > You would then have to write your imports like: > > import "mypkg/a.proto" > > You can also map individual files. > > If this is insufficient then I guess we need a way to specify the python > package explicitly in the .proto file, similar to the java_package option, > rather than just inferring it from the location of the .proto file. > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Alan Kligman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > I need the line to look like: > > > from .. import a_pb2.py > > > The reason this is a problem is because I'm building the protocol > > buffers into the middle of an existing project. The problem is that > > protoc assumes that the output is either at the top of the package, or > > that the related files are all in the same sub-package (which is > > rarely true). Python2.5 supports relative intra-package imports (like > > the one above). More details here: > >http://docs.python.org/tut/node8.html#SECTION008420000000000000000. > > > I think this is probably worth fixing. The workaround is to do some > > post-processing on the output from protoc, which could get nasty. > > > On Oct 27, 5:44 pm, "Kenton Varda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure I understand. What would you expect the import line > > importing > > > a_pb2 to look like? My understanding is that Python imports are > > absolute, > > > not relative to the importing file. > > > > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Alan Kligman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >wrote: > > > > > I'm having a problem with protoc where python imports are not done > > > > correctly. Here's the situation: > > > > > I have a directory structure like this: > > > > > proto/a.proto > > > > proto/a/b.proto > > > > proto/a/c.proto > > > > > a.proto provides some common definitions for both b.proto and c.proto. > > > > I build the output like this: > > > > > protoc --proto_path=. --python_out=../dist *.proto > > > > protoc --proto_path=. --python_out=../dist a/*.proto > > > > > assuming that proto is the current directory. Because a.proto is > > > > included in both b.proto and c.proto, they both import it like this: > > > > > import "a.proto"; # relative to the current directory > > > > > After building the protobuf files with protoc, the resulting python > > > > output has import statements for a_pb2.py that look like: > > > > > import a_pb2.py > > > > > which is wrong, because a_pb2.py is actually in the directory one > > > > above b_pb2.py and c_pb2.py. Is there a way to get protoc to do this > > > > properly? Is it a bug? Python2.5 handles relative imports, but there > > > > is no nice way to do it in python2.4. > > > > > Thoughts? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
