It would be nicer to get the changes into the official release if possible,
rather than have a fork which may become out-of-date. But for that, I
really need you to provide a patch, preferably against the latest SVN
sources, rather than a zip file that doesn't even have matching file names.
I will need to review the changes line-by-line, and will probably suggest a
number of changes -- this is where codereview.appspot.com comes in handy, as
it allows me to send you comments attached to specific lines of code.
But if you don't have time for that, I suppose I could post the link.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:29 AM, Dazza <dazzacoll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you still need me to upload the zip file to
> codereview.appspot.com? The link
> is permanent so maybe you could update the wiki so that fellow Borland/
> Codegear/Embarcadero (whatever it is called these days) C++ Builder
> users can discover this and give it a go?
> We are successfully using this port to enable access from a java web
> app to a legacy windows app that was built with C++ Builder. We are
> using DCOM purely as a transport layer. Our COM interface has a
> single method that accepts a Protocol Buffer containing all of our
> request data and returns a Protocol Buffer with reply data. We are
> using the J-Interop library to handle DCOM on the java side. The
> combination of Protocol Buffers and J-Interop is working well. This
> is fast both in performance and developer productivity, and is so much
> easier than trying to work with COM directly.
> On Oct 16, 9:32 am, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> > Can you upload your patch to codereview.appspot.com regardless? I'd
> like to
> > see what changes are required, and other Borland users could reuse your
> > patch.
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
For more options, visit this group at