By the way ... What are your plans about Generic Services in next
protobuf releases? Since v2.3 you encourage RPC implementors to write
their own code generators for constructing services. How long are you
planing to maintain generic service implementation? We liked idea of
generic services and we heavily use it in our project, it saves a lot
of time when you don't have to bother about code generation.

On Sep 15, 2:53 am, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> No such plans, sorry.
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Zachary Turner 
> <divisorthe...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just out of curiosity, will this be confined to python 2.x still?  We
> > use 3.1, so whenever we have to take a new protobuf release it's
> > always kind of a process porting it to 3.1.
>
> > We can do it again of course, just wondering if 3.x support will be
> > out of the box.
>
> > On Sep 14, 11:28 am, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> > > Petar mostly finished this work, but then left the company.  We're trying
> > to
> > > tie up the loose ends so that we can get it out, but everyone is pretty
> > > busy.  We'll probably do 2.4.0 within a month or two as we have a new
> > team
> > > member who needs to learn the release process, and it should at least
> > > include a beta of this work.
>
> > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Zachary Turner <
> > divisorthe...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > Reading through old threads, I found one that said that the next
> > > > release would probably include Petar's python wrapper for native C++
> > > > protobufs, greatly increasing speed of protubufs when calling from
> > > > Python.
>
> > > > Another post mentioned that this was expected to be done sometime this
> > > > summer.
>
> > > > Now that summer has come and gone, does anyone have an update about
> > > > when this release might be ready?  We're considering re-inventing a
> > > > python / C++ wrapper just because the performance is such a blocker on
> > > > what we're working on at the moment, but given how long it's been in
> > > > the works, it seems like it's such a black hole of work that we're
> > > > going to embark on, whereas the magic hammer solution might only just
> > > > around the corner.
>
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Protocol Buffers" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c
> > > >  om>
> > <protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c om>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Protocol Buffers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.c 
> > om>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@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