On Jun 2, 6:41 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote: > Yeah, we've dropped the ball on this. Unfortunately the people in charge of > the Python protocol buffers implementation also have other, apparently very > demanding projects, and thus Python protobuf hasn't gotten the attention it > deserves. Sadly even Google doesn't have infinite engineering resources. > I'm trying to find a solution to this -- it's a management issue, though, > not a technical one.
One positive thing to note is that if I can get the dynamic stuff working with the C# port (when I've got custom options to actually work: there's a whole bunch of changes I missed before) it should be usable from IronPython. I know that .NET 4.0 and IronPython will only be useful to a subset of our Python "customers" but it may be faster than a pure Python implementation. (I'd be interested to see.) Jon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
