Pavel,
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.

Shardul

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Pavel Shramov <shra...@mexmat.net> 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]
> http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc/source/browse/trunk/protocol/protobufrpc.proto
> [2] https://launchpad.net/txprotobuf/
> [3] http://protorpc.likbilen.com/Protorpcdocprotobuf.html (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 protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to