David Anderson wrote:
> s-protobuf appears to be aiming for completedness,

Completeness is always good.  I'm not sure if I'll get around to
implementing services or extensions anytime soon though.  Services
may not even be very relevant, given the differences between the
C++/Java and Lisp object models.  Also, since for our use case,
s-protobuf will spend most of its time talking to protobuf-c and
since protobuf-c doesn't really support extensions, that's probably
not something I'll be very motivated to implement.

> Neil, if you're interested in the common-lisp-protobuf project
> name on Google Code, I'd be happy to reset the project and
> transfer it to you.

Thanks for the offer, Dave.  For the time being, I'm satisfied with
hosting the git repo and manual in my university web space.  If a
mailing list, trac, etc. ever start to seem worth more than the
trouble, then I'll look into the sundry FOSS hosting options.

--
Neil

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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