View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
October 20, 2012
Anyone have D protobuf?
Not a big deal, but does anyone have or know of a usable up-to-date
protocol buffers implementation for D? All I've found is this:

https://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuffer

But it's old, says its status is only "mid-implementation", has no
license info, and I think it might be D1.
October 21, 2012
Re: Anyone have D protobuf?
On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 07:28:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> Not a big deal, but does anyone have or know of a usable 
> up-to-date
> protocol buffers implementation for D? All I've found is this:
>
> https://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuffer
>
> But it's old, says its status is only "mid-implementation", has 
> no
> license info, and I think it might be D1.

It has been started at least three times that I know of, but I 
don't think anyone ever finished such a beast (I'm guilty of one 
of those myself).  But in related news, in case it fits what 
you're hoping to do, I've written a binding, and am in the 
process of a wrapper, for zeroMQ: https://github.com/csauls/DZMQ

It is usable in the simplest sense as is; so maybe if you're 
willing to roll your own object<->string conversions, this would 
be a start.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
October 21, 2012
Re: Anyone have D protobuf?
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 at 00:13:30 UTC, Chris Nicholson-Sauls
wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 07:28:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
> wrote:
>> Not a big deal, but does anyone have or know of a usable 
>> up-to-date
>> protocol buffers implementation for D? All I've found is this:
>>
>> https://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuffer
>>
>> But it's old, says its status is only "mid-implementation", 
>> has no
>> license info, and I think it might be D1.
>
> It has been started at least three times that I know of, but I 
> don't think anyone ever finished such a beast (I'm guilty of 
> one of those myself).  But in related news, in case it fits 
> what you're hoping to do, I've written a binding, and am in the 
> process of a wrapper, for zeroMQ: https://github.com/csauls/DZMQ
>
> It is usable in the simplest sense as is; so maybe if you're 
> willing to roll your own object<->string conversions, this 
> would be a start.
>
> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
Hey man, If it helps you out: steal anything you want from these.
I didn't check how far along you were, soo...  yeah.


https://github.com/1100110/CZMQ
https://github.com/1100110/ZeroMQ
October 21, 2012
[OT] ZeroMQ (Was: Anyone have D protobuf?)
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 02:13:30 +0200
"Chris Nicholson-Sauls" <ibisbasenji@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 07:28:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
> wrote:
> > Not a big deal, but does anyone have or know of a usable 
> > up-to-date
> > protocol buffers implementation for D? All I've found is this:
> >
> > https://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuffer
> >
> > But it's old, says its status is only "mid-implementation", has 
> > no
> > license info, and I think it might be D1.
> 
> It has been started at least three times that I know of, but I 
> don't think anyone ever finished such a beast (I'm guilty of one 
> of those myself).  But in related news, in case it fits what 
> you're hoping to do, I've written a binding, and am in the 
> process of a wrapper, for zeroMQ: https://github.com/csauls/DZMQ
> 
> It is usable in the simplest sense as is; so maybe if you're 
> willing to roll your own object<->string conversions, this would 
> be a start.
> 

I just needed message packing/unpacking, and it looks like that's
outside the scope of ZeroMQ, so that's not really what I needed.

But ZeroMQ does look really good though, maybe I *should* have been
looking for it ;) I may consider using it, but my biggest concern is
that I can't find anything about using it for UDP-style "Fast as
possible *without* worrying about dropped, out-of-order, or duplicated
packets." Because some of my data will be of that nature. If it had
that *and* optional encryption (comparable with HTTPS/SSL/TLS) for some
(although not all) messages, then I'd be *totally* sold on it.
October 21, 2012
[OT] ZeroMQ (Was: Anyone have D protobuf?)
On 10/20/2012 09:55 PM, 1100110 wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 October 2012 at 00:13:30 UTC, Chris Nicholson-Sauls
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 07:28:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> Not a big deal, but does anyone have or know of a usable up-to-date
>>> protocol buffers implementation for D? All I've found is this:
>>>
>>> https://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuffer
>>>
>>> But it's old, says its status is only "mid-implementation", has no
>>> license info, and I think it might be D1.
>>
>> It has been started at least three times that I know of, but I don't
>> think anyone ever finished such a beast (I'm guilty of one of those
>> myself).  But in related news, in case it fits what you're hoping to
>> do, I've written a binding, and am in the process of a wrapper, for
>> zeroMQ: https://github.com/csauls/DZMQ
>>
>> It is usable in the simplest sense as is; so maybe if you're willing
>> to roll your own object<->string conversions, this would be a start.
>>
>> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
> Hey man, If it helps you out: steal anything you want from these.
> I didn't check how far along you were, soo...  yeah.
>
>
> https://github.com/1100110/CZMQ
> https://github.com/1100110/ZeroMQ
>
Huh. I've also been writing a D wrapper for 0mq. As it is right now, 
though, it's really just OOP wrappers for the Deimos bindings, because I 
figured that it would be easiest. I should check out the CZMQ stuff you 
have and see if any of it is something that I would find useful for my 
projects.
October 21, 2012
Re: [OT] ZeroMQ (Was: Anyone have D protobuf?)
On Sunday, 21 October 2012 at 02:34:03 UTC, Matt Soucy wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 09:55 PM, 1100110 wrote:
>> On Sunday, 21 October 2012 at 00:13:30 UTC, Chris 
>> Nicholson-Sauls
>> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 at 07:28:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Not a big deal, but does anyone have or know of a usable 
>>>> up-to-date
>>>> protocol buffers implementation for D? All I've found is 
>>>> this:
>>>>
>>>> https://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuffer
>>>>
>>>> But it's old, says its status is only "mid-implementation", 
>>>> has no
>>>> license info, and I think it might be D1.
>>>
>>> It has been started at least three times that I know of, but 
>>> I don't
>>> think anyone ever finished such a beast (I'm guilty of one of 
>>> those
>>> myself).  But in related news, in case it fits what you're 
>>> hoping to
>>> do, I've written a binding, and am in the process of a 
>>> wrapper, for
>>> zeroMQ: https://github.com/csauls/DZMQ
>>>
>>> It is usable in the simplest sense as is; so maybe if you're 
>>> willing
>>> to roll your own object<->string conversions, this would be a 
>>> start.
>>>
>>> -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
>> Hey man, If it helps you out: steal anything you want from 
>> these.
>> I didn't check how far along you were, soo...  yeah.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/1100110/CZMQ
>> https://github.com/1100110/ZeroMQ

I'll definitely look through CZMQ once I get a little further 
with what I already have planned.  Thanks.

>>
> Huh. I've also been writing a D wrapper for 0mq. As it is right 
> now, though, it's really just OOP wrappers for the Deimos 
> bindings, because I figured that it would be easiest. I should 
> check out the CZMQ stuff you have and see if any of it is 
> something that I would find useful for my projects.

Up until about a week ago, I didn't even know about zeromq.  ;)  
A friend of mine requested that I write this, because the company 
he works for (iostudio.com) might then consider using D for some 
in-house work.  Crossing fingers, for D's sake.  Since I'm 
writing my wrapper as per his request, we might end up with very 
different products.  Competition is a good thing, right?

Researching and working on this leads me to think I'm going to 
want to use zeromq quite a bit myself, going forward.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls
October 21, 2012
Re: [OT] ZeroMQ (Was: Anyone have D protobuf?)
On 2012-10-21 03:55, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> But ZeroMQ does look really good though, maybe I *should* have been
> looking for it ;) I may consider using it, but my biggest concern is
> that I can't find anything about using it for UDP-style "Fast as
> possible *without* worrying about dropped, out-of-order, or duplicated
> packets." Because some of my data will be of that nature. If it had
> that *and* optional encryption (comparable with HTTPS/SSL/TLS) for some
> (although not all) messages, then I'd be *totally* sold on it.

Don't know if curl supports encryption but otherwise Tango has support 
for SSL.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home