Hello, as part of porting one a product to Python 3, we are willing to port protobuf which is one of our dependencies.
Would a python 2.6 / 3.3 codebase be acceptable for merging upstream? Or would it have to support 2.4? I ask because the effor to achieve both is quite different. On Monday, March 14, 2011 2:45:26 AM UTC-3, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:05 AM, maxw <mwindi...@videotron.ca> wrote: > >> As far as I can tell, the python protocol buffer code is not yet >> compatible with python 3.x. I found a few messages in this discussion >> forum indicating that some people had worked on this, but I saw no >> pointer to actual code. Are you aware of plans or projects (internal >> to google or otherwise) supporting python 3.x? If not, are there >> known reasons blocking this? >> > > We're not working on porting it to Python 3.x internally right now as we > are not yet ready to move our own codebase to Python 3. It does need to > happen and I'd like to see it done this year but I have not taken a close > look at it to see what it will take to do the port and I don't believe > anyone is currently lined up to work on it. > > At first glance I'd break the task down into the following steps: > > 1) Port the python code under protobuf/python to be clean for conversion > to 3.x using 2to3 and fix it up so that unittests pass on both python 2.4 > and 3.1; Start with the inner most modules, doing one at a time. I'm not > sure how difficult this will be as 2.4 compatibility needs to be > maintained. We -might- actually need to fork these into a protobuf/python3 > tree if keeping the code both sane while still compatible with 2.4 is too > messy. > > 2) Fix up the python code generator > protobuf/src/google/protobuf/compiler/python to support generating code for > 3.x. I'd probably start by taking the easy route: adding a --python3_out > to protoc and treading python 3.x as a new language. It is possible to have > it generate code that passes 2to3 and works but that could be too much > pain; writing code dealing with unicode/str/bytes differences that works on > < 2.6 that also works right when passed through 2to3 can be a bit too "fun." > > 3) After the above is done and pure python 3.x protobufs are working and > passing all tests, porting the C++ wrapping extension module under > python/google/protobuf/pyext should be the easiest part. > > Any attempts you or anyone else can make on the above would be appreciated. > > I suspect it might be a lot easier if we can move the minimum supported > python version up to 2.6. > > -Greg (g...@google.com) > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/JHljHolEWo4J. 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.
