I didn't want to have my code depend on anything else other than the core
protobuf library which is why I wrote my own wire spec.
I could remove service from my request format or add it to [1], but that
would still not make them compatible since the response format would still
be different.
If you want to add a non-twisted python implementation using my wire spec, I
would be happy to let you add it to my project.


On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Pavel Shramov <> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:13:12PM -0800, Shardul Deo wrote:
> > Let me know if you have any questions (or if there is something better
> > that I can use instead),
> Why You have not considered taking one of existing wire format
> specifications [1, 2, 3]? Having field of service description is nice
> but why not to add it in [1] thus making compatible implementation in
> single-service environments?
> Currently I'm looking for nice wire format to implement lightweight
> (read "without twisted") protobuf rpc for python and found that still
> there are no compatible implementations :(
>                Pavel
> PS Sorry for long delay :)
> --
> [1]
> [2]
> [3] (currently down)

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
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to