you could consider wrapping protobuf-c... that will at least save you the hassle of writing the C wrapper around C++.
- dave On Nov 12, 10:04 am, "Petar Petrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
