Re: A Working Common Lisp Implementation

[Neil T. Dantam]

David Anderson wrote:
> s-protobuf appears to be aiming for completedness,

Completeness is always good.  I'm not sure if I'll get around to
implementing services or extensions anytime soon though.  Services
may not even be very relevant, given the differences between the
C++/Java and Lisp object models.  Also, since for our use case,
s-protobuf will spend most of its time talking to protobuf-c and
since protobuf-c doesn't really support extensions, that's probably
not something I'll be very motivated to implement.

> Neil, if you're interested in the common-lisp-protobuf project
> name on Google Code, I'd be happy to reset the project and
> transfer it to you.

Thanks for the offer, Dave.  For the time being, I'm satisfied with
hosting the git repo and manual in my university web space.  If a
mailing list, trac, etc. ever start to seem worth more than the
trouble, then I'll look into the sundry FOSS hosting options.

--
Neil

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

Re: A Working Common Lisp Implementation

[Kenton Varda]

I've taken your advice and removed the other two links.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:22 AM, David Anderson  wrote:

> Mine (http://code.google.com/p/common-lisp-protobuf/) was essentially
> an experiment to train myself in Lisp, and was never a fully
> functional implementation. Since I don't have the time currently to
> make it into a full implementation, and since s-protobuf appears to be
> aiming for completedness, I'm happy for my project to be removed from
> the third party page.
>
> As for the other implementation, http://code.google.com/p/cl-protobuf/
> , it seems to have had no activity since July 2008, and provides no
> source code, so I would suggest that it can also be removed, in the
> name of decluttering the Common Lisp protocol buffer offerings.
>
> Neil, if you're interested in the common-lisp-protobuf project name on
> Google Code, I'd be happy to reset the project and transfer it to you.
>
> - Dave
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Kenton Varda  wrote:
> > I've added this to the list of implementations:
> >   http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/ThirdPartyAddOns
> > Looks like we have two other Common Lisp implementations already, but
> > neither one appears to be maintained.  :/
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:31 PM, ntd  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I wanted to announce a Common Lisp protobuf implementation:
> >>
> >> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~ndantam3/docs/s-protobuf/
> >>
> >> Currently it can encode and decode all the basic test cases listed in
> >> the protobuf documentation.  It will also read in the binary output of
> >> protoc to generate the class and method definitions.  There are still
> >> plenty of missing features though, as detailed in the link above.
> >>
> >> Hopefully someone will find this useful.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Neil
> >>
> >
> >
> > > >
> >
>

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

Re: A Working Common Lisp Implementation

[David Anderson]

Mine (http://code.google.com/p/common-lisp-protobuf/) was essentially
an experiment to train myself in Lisp, and was never a fully
functional implementation. Since I don't have the time currently to
make it into a full implementation, and since s-protobuf appears to be
aiming for completedness, I'm happy for my project to be removed from
the third party page.

As for the other implementation, http://code.google.com/p/cl-protobuf/
, it seems to have had no activity since July 2008, and provides no
source code, so I would suggest that it can also be removed, in the
name of decluttering the Common Lisp protocol buffer offerings.

Neil, if you're interested in the common-lisp-protobuf project name on
Google Code, I'd be happy to reset the project and transfer it to you.

- Dave

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Kenton Varda  wrote:
> I've added this to the list of implementations:
>   http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/ThirdPartyAddOns
> Looks like we have two other Common Lisp implementations already, but
> neither one appears to be maintained.  :/
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:31 PM, ntd  wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I wanted to announce a Common Lisp protobuf implementation:
>>
>> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~ndantam3/docs/s-protobuf/
>>
>> Currently it can encode and decode all the basic test cases listed in
>> the protobuf documentation.  It will also read in the binary output of
>> protoc to generate the class and method definitions.  There are still
>> plenty of missing features though, as detailed in the link above.
>>
>> Hopefully someone will find this useful.
>>
>> --
>> Neil
>>
>
>
> >
>

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

Re: A Working Common Lisp Implementation

[Kenton Varda]

I've added this to the list of implementations:
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/ThirdPartyAddOns

Looks like we have
two other Common Lisp implementations already, but neither one appears to be
maintained.  :/

On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 11:31 PM, ntd  wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> I wanted to announce a Common Lisp protobuf implementation:
>
> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~ndantam3/docs/s-protobuf/
>
> Currently it can encode and decode all the basic test cases listed in
> the protobuf documentation.  It will also read in the binary output of
> protoc to generate the class and method definitions.  There are still
> plenty of missing features though, as detailed in the link above.
>
> Hopefully someone will find this useful.
>
> --
> Neil
> >
>

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