Thank you Kenton & Shane - it must have been a slow brain day for me
yesterday :-)

I confused the underlying implementation with what PB provides. The
RPC system doesn't know or care how data is transferred.

On Nov 20, 5:56 pm, Shane Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It sounds like the system in question has a single "public" service with
> delegates calls to back-end services, distributed across machines
> available to it.  It seems as though the public service provides an
> interface which is essentially a composition of the interfaces provided
> by the services available to it.  

That's is exactly.

> The process of accepting requests for methods it provides on behalf of
> these back-end services, which it handles by delegating to the
> appropriate back-end service, is essentially multiplexing multiple
> services from a single network location.
> If this is at all accurate, then I believe that the API exported by the
> public service should be built, dynamically, based on the set of
> interfaces available to it.  Taking this approach would allow each
> service to define its own interface.  While all the functionality
> available on the network can be exposed as though it were all provided
> by a single entity, assuming there are no naming conflicts ;-)

That sounds like what I should be doing. I was just making it hard for
myself by thinking it was more complicated than it is.

> Or maybe I'm completely confused about the setup.

No, I think you've got it right.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to