Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in Remote Procedure Call Library?
From: Daniel Larimer (dlarimer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-08 03:39:39
Do you mean that multiple languages should support the RPC protocol? Does LabView count? We currently have an embedded (C) version and a labview one.
I was looking to make the C++ api flexible enough to support any protocol, the fact that we have developed a light-weight low bandwidth protocol should not distract from the real potential of the API to support any protocol backend.
That said, I do hope that the meta information would make it easy to bind scripting languages to our C++ code.
On Feb 8, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Stephan Menzel wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Daniel Larimer <dlarimer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> So I need to get some more support to convince my employer that this will be a good move. Active interest would be a good sign. Other ideas on the positive aspects of contributing vs keeping it internal would also help me make my case.
> Just a few words from my side.
> We have built a quite similar library just recently here. What proved
> essential and appeared to be missing in you draft is support for
> multiple languages. Our library here can offer methods in C++ and Java
> and can be called from clients in C++, Java and Python. Which turned
> out a very good thing. Given there's plenty of such solutions around I
> suggest you consider multilanguage support for yours. I believe
> there's no point in developing such a lib without that nowadays.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk