On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Kenton Varda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cc'ing Petar]
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:23 PM, DVusBoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a couple of questions regarding the Python implementation.
1. There is a discrepancy between the function signatures of the
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, codeazure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:19 am, Petar Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, there are plans to improve performance. I have spent a little time
on
this without significant improvements.
I think performance can hardly get a drastic
I think the idea is to break up very large data sets into smaller
packets so they can be 'streamed'.
When I think of something like seismic data, stream based event
handling makes the most sense.
Can the data points be processed individually somehow, or do you need
access to all of them (in
You don't have to worry about the uninterpreted_option field. It's an
internal implementation detail of the parser. You should pretend it isn't
there.
The comment is saying that the uninterpreted_option field must have the name
uninterpreted_option in all *Options messages because the parser
Hi -
My company works on an intranet that doesn't have an internet
connection. For 3rd-party libraries, we typically download the
documentation and host it locally. I plan to use protobuf, but I
don't see anywhere to download the docs. Any chance they'll be added
to the download package or
Sorry, the docs are not actually stored in HTML form. They are EZT
templates, so if we did make them downloadable you'd have to run an EZT web
server to view them. The best we could do otherwise would be to spider them
ourselves. So I don't think there's much worth doing here.
On Wed, Nov 12,
