Thank you Kenton & Shane - it must have been a slow brain day for me
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 email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at