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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
