Re: Java socket based rpc implementation
protobuf-c now has an rpc implementation, check it out: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-c/wiki/RPC_System On Feb 10, 10:19 am, sagar.i...@gmail.com wrote: any plans on extending this to C? looking for a simple cross-language client-server library. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Java socket based rpc implementation
I guess i should mention a few design features of the protobuf-c api: - completely introspectable - able to wrap into another application's main-loop I think those features should make it easy to write a language binding to it. I am considering someday improving it to be able to create a ProtobufC_*Descriptor without running the compiler, by re-implmenting the .proto parsing code. On Feb 18, 9:22 pm, lahike...@gmail.com wrote: protobuf-c now has an rpc implementation, check it out: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-c/wiki/RPC_System On Feb 10, 10:19 am, sagar.i...@gmail.com wrote: any plans on extending this to C? looking for a simple cross-language client-server library. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Java socket based rpc implementation
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:13:12PM -0800, Shardul Deo wrote: Let me know if you have any questions (or if there is something better that I can use instead), Why You have not considered taking one of existing wire format specifications [1, 2, 3]? Having field of service description is nice but why not to add it in [1] thus making compatible implementation in single-service environments? Currently I'm looking for nice wire format to implement lightweight (read without twisted) protobuf rpc for python and found that still there are no compatible implementations :( Pavel PS Sorry for long delay :) -- [1] http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc/source/browse/trunk/protocol/protobufrpc.proto [2] https://launchpad.net/txprotobuf/ [3] http://protorpc.likbilen.com/Protorpcdocprotobuf.html (currently down) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Java socket based rpc implementation
Pavel, I didn't want to have my code depend on anything else other than the core protobuf library which is why I wrote my own wire spec. I could remove service from my request format or add it to [1], but that would still not make them compatible since the response format would still be different. If you want to add a non-twisted python implementation using my wire spec, I would be happy to let you add it to my project. Shardul On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Pavel Shramov shra...@mexmat.net wrote: On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:13:12PM -0800, Shardul Deo wrote: Let me know if you have any questions (or if there is something better that I can use instead), Why You have not considered taking one of existing wire format specifications [1, 2, 3]? Having field of service description is nice but why not to add it in [1] thus making compatible implementation in single-service environments? Currently I'm looking for nice wire format to implement lightweight (read without twisted) protobuf rpc for python and found that still there are no compatible implementations :( Pavel PS Sorry for long delay :) -- [1] http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc/source/browse/trunk/protocol/protobufrpc.proto [2] https://launchpad.net/txprotobuf/ [3] http://protorpc.likbilen.com/Protorpcdocprotobuf.html (currently down) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Java socket based rpc implementation
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 12:35:17PM -0800, Shardul Deo wrote: Pavel, I didn't want to have my code depend on anything else other than the core protobuf library which is why I wrote my own wire spec. I could remove service from my request format or add it to [1], but that would still not make them compatible since the response format would still be different. Using external wire definition is not something that makes You 'dependant' but instead giving ability to use others work for cross-language projects. There was already thread about 'common' wire format but it dies silently so maybe give it another try? Why not to settle simple common format for RPC? At least we may ask googlers to judge us :) From my point of view Yours format is not ideal since it lacks asynchronous calls (and hypothetical ability for bidirectional calls). Most simple is [1] but it has non-obvious Error message and lacks field for service. If you want to add a non-twisted python implementation using my wire spec, I would be happy to let you add it to my project. When I'll find suitable and compatible with someones project wire format :) Pavel [1] http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc/source/browse/trunk/protocol/protobufrpc.proto --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Java socket based rpc implementation
any plans on extending this to C? looking for a simple cross-language client-server library. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Java socket based rpc implementation
After a few abortive starts, I'm keen to keep pushing on the C#/RPC front... if the wire format / methodology is documented (and sensible ;-p), I'd happily have a stab at a C# client/server - the intent being to be able to talk cross-architecture. Marc (protobuf-net) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Java socket based rpc implementation
Thanks, can you put (Java) next to my project link and (Python) next to the 3rd link to make it easy for people to pick? Shardul On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote: Cool, I've added this to the wiki: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/RPCImplementations On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Shar shardul@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I was looking a simple java socket based client-server implementation of protobuf rpcs and couldn't find one so I went ahead an wrote one up. A couple of my friends are also using it and have found it useful so I thought there might be some others on this list who might find it useful. http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-socket-rpc/ Let me know if you have any questions (or if there is something better that I can use instead), Thanks, Shardul --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
