On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 09:48:29PM +, Marc Gravell wrote:
Re the whole what should an endpoint url look like thing - I had a similar
discussion with a user re protobuf-net; in the end it was quicker to just
*default* to the former (since it doesn't need any extra specification), but
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:01:20AM +0300, Pavel Shramov wrote:
I've set one at http://psha.org.ru/pbuftest/?{service}.{action}
Forgot to mention that it is standart Test service with Echo call
and Math service [1].
Pavel
--
[1]
I'll definitely try that later ;-p
2009/12/11 Pavel Shramov shra...@mexmat.net
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:01:20AM +0300, Pavel Shramov wrote:
I've set one at http://psha.org.ru/pbuftest/?{service}.{action}
Forgot to mention that it is standart Test service with Echo call
and Math service
Hi Romain,
On 9 Dez., 12:10, Romain François francoisrom...@free.fr wrote:
http is quite verbose for sending protobuf message around, but it is
likely to be implemented for a lot of languages.
we did just this here. We wrote an RPC implementation complete with
HTTP transport and protobuf as
I am new to ProtocolBuffer and wanted to verify that I am doing the
right thing here:
I have proto definitions as:
Person {
required string fname =1;
required string lname = 2;
required string email = 3;
}
MyResponse {
repeated Person persons = 1;
}
What is the most effecient way to
Yep, that's the way to do it.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Programmer 09 macster2...@gmail.comwrote:
I am new to ProtocolBuffer and wanted to verify that I am doing the
right thing here:
I have proto definitions as:
Person {
required string fname =1;
required string lname = 2;
Hello Chris,
2009/12/10 Christopher Smith cbsm...@gmail.com:
One compression algo that I thought would be particularly useful with PB's
would be LZO. It lines up nicely with PB's goals of being fast and compact.
Have you thought about allowing an integrated LZO stream?
--Chris
My goal is to
Hi all,
Just wondering if it is at all possible to include protobuf messages
that aren't resolved at generation time. What I mean is, I'd like to
be able to more or less declare a message type as extern, and be
able to use it in my .proto file, then resolve the extern by having
the generated
You can use extensions for this.
message BarMsg {
extensions 100 to max;
}
Then, in some other file that knows about both FooMsg and BarMsg, do:
extend BarMsg {
optional FooMsg foo_ext = 100;
}
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:37 PM, atkretsch atkret...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
An example:
Foo.jar contains the compiled Java code for the following protobuf:
option java_package = com.foo;
message FooMsg {
optional int32 a = 1;
optional int32 b = 2;
...
}
In my code, I want to do this:
option java_package = com.bar;
message BarMsg {
optional
As I'm sure you can imagine, we store a lot of data in protocol buffer
format at Google, so we often want to store very large files with many
serialized protocol buffers. The technique we use is to batch a bunch of
records together, compress them and write the compressed block to the file
(with
11 matches
Mail list logo
