On Nov 13, 5:04 am, "Petar Petrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A few things. The current Python API has to remain pure-Python because some > clients aren't able to use C/C++ extensions (like AppEngine). > Boost is generally not accepted in Google, so a Boost::Pythonit interface > will have to distribute separately. > > We are planning a Python C extension. It will likely consist of a separate > python code generator to create Python code which wraps the C++ > API and provides Python API similar to the current pure-Python protobuf API.
Thanks for your feedback. I can see that for the official Python support, this makes a lot of sense. You want to make it possible for as wide a group of users as possible to use it. I'll look forward to seeing how this development goes. But I will do some experimentation with Boost::Python as this is a much more convenient tool for C++ developers. If it works out, I will make it available for others doing similar development. My current application uses a very large Python::Boost definition defining my API, with every variable and function explicitly defined. By changing it to use a generic Message interface with reflection, I can drastically simplify this Python/C++ gateway. One of the things I like about PB is its portability and this is a great example of how different solutions can be useful in various situations. Regards, Jeff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
