Hi folks,
As I posted a topic here before, I have done some integration for
protobuf and Netty to enable the rapid implementation of highly
efficient binary protocol clients and servers. With both technologies
combined, you can build a socket client / server with protobuf very
quickly. I'd
On Jan 6, 3:11 pm, Chris turingt...@gmail.com wrote:
I found the attached protobuffer file quite useful in torture testing
the ability to handle circular dependencies.
Great, thanks - I'll try it against my C# port as soon as I can.
Jon
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
How would that work, exactly?
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:50 AM, mikesparr...@gmail.com
mikesparr...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there an existing convert that can take a header file and produce
a .proto file?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
On Jan 7, 4:21 pm, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
SWIG translates C/C++ APIs into other programming languages. Protocol
Buffers is not a programming language, so I don't see the analogy. What
would be the protocol buffer equivalent of a C function or a C++ class?
Technically, SWIG
Protocol buffers are useful even if all users are using the same language.
In fact, we used them in C++ for some time before anyone bothered writing
Java and Python implementations.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Alek Storm alek.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Mike, what exactly are you trying to
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Alek Storm alek.st...@gmail.com wrote:
Right, I guess I didn't explain why they don't work in this case.
Generating .proto files from C++ headers is obviously the reverse of
the normal sequence. In the PB method of versioning, the
original .proto is written
I believe there was a proposal internally that if the caller passes None for
the callback, the RPC implementation should block until completion and then
return the result. Does that seem like what you want?
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Alan Kligman alan.klig...@gmail.com wrote:
I poked
Sounds fine to me, but it's up to Petar (cc'd).
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Alan Kligman alan.klig...@gmail.com wrote:
Ya, that's exactly what I'm experimenting with now and precisely what
I'm looking for. Would be perfect if the callback had a default value
of None too.
a
On Jan 7,
On Jan 7, 8:18 pm, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
IMO, there's not much reason to use the protobuf wire format unless you
explicitly intend for some users to read/write the format using actual
protocol buffers.
Not entirely sure what you mean. This will probably get a lot clearer
once
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 06:23:31PM -0800, Alan Kligman wrote:
I poked around a bit and the code above isn't correct (for a couple of
reasons). But the question remains: should stubs be generated that
return the response down the callstack instead of passing it through a
callback function?
10 matches
Mail list logo
