Reworking our support for platform specific functions

[Daniel van Vugt]

Remember a few of us at least aspire to retiring Protobuf eventually. 
One way or the other. Don't get too tied to it.


On 14/10/14 16:45, Alexandros Frantzis wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:14:46AM +0100, Alan Griffiths wrote:
>> On 14/10/14 08:14, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:
>>>
>>> We're talking about extensions here, but again we're talking about
>>> throwing void* around. It's entirely possible to add a mechanism for
>>> the platform (or other code) to register extra protobuf handlers.
>>
>> Not only is it possible, it has been done. We're currently talking of
>> withdrawing that feature:
>>
>>
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~alan-griffiths/mir/privatize-PrivateProtobuf/+merge/237436
>
> I'd rather we didn't go down the direct protobuf path. Protobuf is an
> implementation detail which, IMO, would be a mistake to officially
> expose outside our RPC layers. We could potentially add an abstraction
> around the protobuf functionality we want to expose, but it remains to
> be seen if such an effort is worth it.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexandros
>