On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, codeazure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Oct 31, 5:19 am, "Petar Petrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, there are plans to improve performance. I have spent a little time
> on
> > this without significant improvements.
> > I think performance can hardly get a drastic improvement without a C++
> > extension module (which we are planning to have).
> Are you aware of anyone doing any work on a C++ Boost::Python
> interface for PB?

No, we aren't aware of such.

> This would seem to be a relatively easy thing to
> write, implementing the __getattr__/__setattr__ Python methods in
> Boost::Python to interface to the reflection mechanism in PB.

A few things. The current Python API has to remain pure-Python because some
clients aren't able to use C/C++ extensions (like AppEngine).
Boost is generally not accepted in Google, so a Boost::Pythonit interface
will have to distribute separately.

We are planning a Python C extension. It will likely consist of a separate
python code generator to create Python code which wraps the C++
API and provides Python API similar to the current pure-Python protobuf API.

> If noone else is doing it, I might try this myself & pass it on if it
> works.

> Regards,
> Jeff
> >

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 

Reply via email to