On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 13:43 -0500, Alan Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 09:39 +0000, Dominic Evans wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> > 
> > -----Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com> wrote: -----
> > > I plan to start working on a "go" <golang.org> binding for proton. I
> > > envisage a SWIG binding similar to the other swig-based bindings
> > > (python, ruby, etc.) and an API layer similar to the new reactive
> > > Python API (based on the C reactor.)
> > >
> > > This will be an exploratory effort to begin with, I'd like to hear
> > > from anybody who might be interested in using such a thing or helping
> > > to implement it.
> > 
> > This is certainly something I'd be interested in. However, as far as I was 
> > aware, the usefulness of SWIG for Go was where you needed to wrapper C++ 
> > libraries.
> > 
> > If you're just planning on wrapping the proton-c reactor code, wouldn't we 
> > simply use cgo [1]?
> Maybe. The go docs mention both swig and cgo. My initial assumption was
> that since we already have a well defined swig layer that is used by
> everything else, that probably would make sense. However I haven't
> looked at cgo in detail yet so if it has big advantages over swig then
> it is a possibility.

In principle if possible I would avoid using swig!

I think it would actually be nice to use cffi for the python bindings -
the fewer extra build dependencies for the minimal testable build the

Since our testing uses python - I would be very much in favour of
recasting the proton.py code in terms of cffi (or similar) and avoid
using the swigged cproton.so library.


Reply via email to