On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 13:43 -0500, Alan Conway wrote: > On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 09:39 +0000, Dominic Evans wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > > > -----Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com> wrote: ----- > > > I plan to start working on a "go" <golang.org> binding for proton. I > > > envisage a SWIG binding similar to the other swig-based bindings > > > (python, ruby, etc.) and an API layer similar to the new reactive > > > Python API (based on the C reactor.) > > > > > > This will be an exploratory effort to begin with, I'd like to hear > > > from anybody who might be interested in using such a thing or helping > > > to implement it. > > > > This is certainly something I'd be interested in. However, as far as I was > > aware, the usefulness of SWIG for Go was where you needed to wrapper C++ > > libraries. > > > > If you're just planning on wrapping the proton-c reactor code, wouldn't we > > simply use cgo [1]? > > Maybe. The go docs mention both swig and cgo. My initial assumption was > that since we already have a well defined swig layer that is used by > everything else, that probably would make sense. However I haven't > looked at cgo in detail yet so if it has big advantages over swig then > it is a possibility.
In principle if possible I would avoid using swig! <aside> I think it would actually be nice to use cffi for the python bindings - the fewer extra build dependencies for the minimal testable build the better. Since our testing uses python - I would be very much in favour of recasting the proton.py code in terms of cffi (or similar) and avoid using the swigged cproton.so library. </aside> Andrew
