Re: speed - python implementation
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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: speed - python implementation
you could consider wrapping protobuf-c... that will at least save you the hassle of writing the C wrapper around C++. - dave On Nov 12, 10:04 am, "Petar Petrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, codeazure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 5:19 am, "Petar Petrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, there are plans to improve performance. I have spent a little time > > on > > > this without significant improvements. > > > I think performance can hardly get a drastic improvement without a C++ > > > extension module (which we are planning to have). > > > Are you aware of anyone doing any work on a C++ Boost::Python > > interface for PB? > > No, we aren't aware of such. > > > This would seem to be a relatively easy thing to > > write, implementing the __getattr__/__setattr__ Python methods in > > Boost::Python to interface to the reflection mechanism in PB. > > 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. > > > > > If noone else is doing it, I might try this myself & pass it on if it > > works. > > > 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: speed - python implementation
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, codeazure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 5:19 am, "Petar Petrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, there are plans to improve performance. I have spent a little time > on > > this without significant improvements. > > I think performance can hardly get a drastic improvement without a C++ > > extension module (which we are planning to have). > > Are you aware of anyone doing any work on a C++ Boost::Python > interface for PB? No, we aren't aware of such. > This would seem to be a relatively easy thing to > write, implementing the __getattr__/__setattr__ Python methods in > Boost::Python to interface to the reflection mechanism in PB. 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. > > If noone else is doing it, I might try this myself & pass it on if it > works. > > 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: speed - python implementation
On Oct 31, 5:19 am, "Petar Petrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, there are plans to improve performance. I have spent a little time on > this without significant improvements. > I think performance can hardly get a drastic improvement without a C++ > extension module (which we are planning to have). Are you aware of anyone doing any work on a C++ Boost::Python interface for PB? This would seem to be a relatively easy thing to write, implementing the __getattr__/__setattr__ Python methods in Boost::Python to interface to the reflection mechanism in PB. If noone else is doing it, I might try this myself & pass it on if it works. 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: speed - python implementation
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:47 AM, andres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to use protocol buffers in my python code but currently > the serialization and parsing methods are too slow compared to > cPickle. I've read several posts stating that this is because the > python implementation has not been optimized for speed yet. Are there > plans to improve the performance of proto buffers in python? Yes, there are plans to improve performance. I have spent a little time on this without significant improvements. I think performance can hardly get a drastic improvement without a C++ extension module (which we are planning to have). Does > anybody know of a C++ extension/wrapper module which lets you access C+ > + compiled protocol buffers directly from python code? > > Thanks, > Andres > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: speed - python implementation
Jeremy Leader wrote: > Might it be possible to use the XS wrappers generated by protobuf-perlxs > from Python? Aaah, not enough caffeine yet. I somehow confused XS (Perl-specific) with SWIG (supports Perl, Python, and many others). Never mind! -- Jeremy Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: speed - python implementation
Might it be possible to use the XS wrappers generated by protobuf-perlxs from Python? -- Jeremy Leader [EMAIL PROTECTED] andres wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to use protocol buffers in my python code but currently > the serialization and parsing methods are too slow compared to > cPickle. I've read several posts stating that this is because the > python implementation has not been optimized for speed yet. Are there > plans to improve the performance of proto buffers in python? Does > anybody know of a C++ extension/wrapper module which lets you access C+ > + compiled protocol buffers directly from python code? > > Thanks, > Andres --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: speed - python implementation
[+petar] On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:47 AM, andres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to use protocol buffers in my python code but currently > the serialization and parsing methods are too slow compared to > cPickle. I've read several posts stating that this is because the > python implementation has not been optimized for speed yet. Are there > plans to improve the performance of proto buffers in python? Does > anybody know of a C++ extension/wrapper module which lets you access C+ > + compiled protocol buffers directly from python code? > > Thanks, > Andres > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
speed - python implementation
Hi, I would like to use protocol buffers in my python code but currently the serialization and parsing methods are too slow compared to cPickle. I've read several posts stating that this is because the python implementation has not been optimized for speed yet. Are there plans to improve the performance of proto buffers in python? Does anybody know of a C++ extension/wrapper module which lets you access C+ + compiled protocol buffers directly from python code? Thanks, Andres --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
