Ravi wrote: >> Take a look at the struct and ctypes modules.
> struct is really not the choice. it returns an expanded string of the > data and this means larger latency over bluetooth.
If you read the module documentation more carefully you will see that it "converts" between the various native data types and character strings. Thus each native data type occupies only as many bytes as are required to store it in its native form (modulo any alignments needed).
> ctypes is basically for the interface with libraries written in C > (this I read from the python docs)
I believe it *is* the struct module you need.
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
On 2009-01-25, Ravi <ra.ravi....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Take a look at the struct and ctypes modules.
> struct is really not the choice. it returns an expanded string of the > data and this means larger latency over bluetooth.
I don't know what you mean by "returns an expanded string of the data".
I do know that struct does exactly what you requested.
It converts between Python objects and what is bascially a C "struct" where you specify the endianness of each field and what sort of packing/padding you want.
I use the struct module frequenty to impliment binary, communications protocols in Python. I've used Python/struct with transport layers ranging from Ethernet (raw, TCP, and UDP) to async serial, to CAN.
>>> Take a look at the struct and ctypes modules. >> struct is really not the choice. it returns an expanded string of the >> data and this means larger latency over bluetooth.
> I don't know what you mean by "returns an expanded string of > the data".
> I do know that struct does exactly what you requested.
I disagree. He has a format (type, length, value), with the value being variable-sized. How do you do that in the struct module?
> It converts between Python objects and what is bascially a C > "struct" where you specify the endianness of each field and > what sort of packing/padding you want.
Sure. However, in the specific case, there is really no C struct that can reasonably represent the data. Hence you cannot really use the struct module.
> I use the struct module frequenty to impliment binary, > communications protocols in Python. I've used Python/struct > with transport layers ranging from Ethernet (raw, TCP, and UDP) > to async serial, to CAN.
Do you use it for the fixed-size parts, or also for the variable-sized data?
On 2009-01-25, Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
>>>> Take a look at the struct and ctypes modules. >>> struct is really not the choice. it returns an expanded string of the >>> data and this means larger latency over bluetooth.
>> I don't know what you mean by "returns an expanded string of >> the data".
>> I do know that struct does exactly what you requested.
> I disagree. He has a format (type, length, value), with the > value being variable-sized. How do you do that in the struct > module?
You construct a format string for the "value" portion based on the type/length header.
>> It converts between Python objects and what is bascially a C >> "struct" where you specify the endianness of each field and >> what sort of packing/padding you want.
> Sure. However, in the specific case, there is really no C > struct that can reasonably represent the data.
I don't see how that can be the case. There may not be a single C struct that can represent all frames, but for every frame you should be able to come up with a C struct that can represent that frame.
> Hence you cannot really use the struct module.
Perhaps I don't understand his requirements, but I use the struct module for protocols with type/len/value sorts of packets.
>> I use the struct module frequenty to impliment binary, >> communications protocols in Python. I've used Python/struct >> with transport layers ranging from Ethernet (raw, TCP, and >> UDP) to async serial, to CAN.
> Do you use it for the fixed-size parts, or also for the > variable-sized data?
Both. For varible size/format stuff you decode the first few bytes and use them to figure out what format/layout to use for the next chunk of data. It's pretty much the same thing you do in other languages.
>> I disagree. He has a format (type, length, value), with the >> value being variable-sized. How do you do that in the struct >> module?
> You construct a format string for the "value" portion based on > the type/length header.
Can you kindly provide example code on how to do this?
> I don't see how that can be the case. There may not be a > single C struct that can represent all frames, but for every > frame you should be able to come up with a C struct that can > represent that frame.
Sure. You would normally have a struct such as
struct TLV{ char type; char length; char *data;
};
However, the in-memory representation of that struct is *not* meant to be sent over the wire. In particular, the character pointer has no meaning outside the address space, and is thus not to be sent.
> Both. For varible size/format stuff you decode the first few > bytes and use them to figure out what format/layout to use for > the next chunk of data. It's pretty much the same thing you do > in other languages.
In the example he gave, I would just avoid using the struct module entirely, as it does not provide any additional value:
Am I missing a better way to translate chr(n) from 2.x to 3.x? The meaning assigned to bytes(n) in 3.X is "interesting":
2.X: nuls = '\0' * n out_byte = chr(n)
3.X: nuls = b'\0' * n or nuls = bytes(n) out_byte = bytes([n])
Looks to me like there was already a reasonable way of getting a bytes object containing a variable number of zero bytes. Any particular reason why bytes(n) was given this specialised meaning? Can't be the speed, because the speed of bytes(n) on my box is about 50% of the speed of the * expression for n = 16 and about 65% for n = 1024.
> Looks to me like there was already a reasonable way of getting a bytes > object containing a variable number of zero bytes. Any particular > reason why bytes(n) was given this specialised meaning?
I think it was because bytes() was originally mutable, and you need a way to create a buffer of n bytes. Now that bytes() ended up immutable (and bytearray was added), it's perhaps not so useful anymore. Of course, it would be confusing if bytes(4) created a sequence of one byte, yet bytearray(4) created four bytes.
On 2009-01-25, Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
>> You construct a format string for the "value" portion based on >> the type/length header.
> Can you kindly provide example code on how to do this?
OK, something like this to handle received data where there is an initial 8-bit type field that is 1 for 16-bit unsigned integers in network byte-order, 2 for 32-bit IEEE floats in network byte-order. We'll further assume that the 'length' field comes next as a 16 bit unsigned value in network order and represents "how many" objects of the specified type follow:
>> I don't see how that can be the case. There may not be a >> single C struct that can represent all frames, but for every >> frame you should be able to come up with a C struct that can >> represent that frame.
> However, the in-memory representation of that struct is *not* > meant to be sent over the wire. In particular, the character > pointer has no meaning outside the address space, and is thus > not to be sent.
Well if it's not representing the layout of the data we're trying to deal with, then it's irrelevent. We are talking about how convert python objects to/from data in the 'on-the-wire' format, right?
Or isn't that what the OP is asking about?
>> Both. For varible size/format stuff you decode the first few >> bytes and use them to figure out what format/layout to use for >> the next chunk of data. It's pretty much the same thing you do >> in other languages.
> In the example he gave, I would just avoid using the struct module > entirely, as it does not provide any additional value:
Unfortunately, that does not work in the example. We have a message type (an integer), and a variable-length string. So how do you compute the struct format for that?
>> However, the in-memory representation of that struct is *not* >> meant to be sent over the wire. In particular, the character >> pointer has no meaning outside the address space, and is thus >> not to be sent.
> Well if it's not representing the layout of the data we're > trying to deal with, then it's irrelevent. We are talking > about how convert python objects to/from data in the > 'on-the-wire' format, right?
Right: ON-THE-WIRE, not IN MEMORY. In memory, there is a pointer. On the wire, there are no pointers.
> Like this?
>>>> def encode(type,length,value): > ... return chr(type)+chr(length)+value > ... >>>> print encode('float', 1, 3.14159) > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> > File "<stdin>", line 2, in encode > TypeError: an integer is required
> Unfortunately, that does not work in the example. We have > a message type (an integer), and a variable-length string. > So how do you compute the struct format for that?
I'm confused. Are you asking for an introductory tutorial on programming in Python?
> Right: ON-THE-WIRE, not IN MEMORY. In memory, there is a > pointer. On the wire, there are no pointers.
>> Unfortunately, that does not work in the example. We have >> a message type (an integer), and a variable-length string. >> So how do you compute the struct format for that?
> I'm confused. Are you asking for an introductory tutorial on > programming in Python?
Perhaps. I honestly do not know how to deal with variable-sized strings in the struct module in a reasonable way, and thus believe that this module is incapable of actually supporting them (unless you use inappropriate trickery).
However, as you keep claiming that the struct module is what should be used, I must be missing something about the struct module.
> If all your data is comprised of 8-bit bytes, then you don't > need the struct module.
Go back to the original message of the OP. It says
# I have following packet format which I have to send over Bluetooth. # packet_type (1 byte unsigned) || packet_length (1 byte unsigned) || # packet_data(variable)
So yes, all his date is comprised of 8-bit bytes, and yes, he doesn't need the struct module. Hence I'm puzzled why people suggest that he uses the struct module.
I think the key answer is "use the string type, it is appropriate to represent byte oriented data in python" (also see the subject of this thread)
On 2009-01-25, Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, that does not work in the example. We have >>> a message type (an integer), and a variable-length string. >>> So how do you compute the struct format for that?
>> I'm confused. Are you asking for an introductory tutorial on >> programming in Python?
> Perhaps. I honestly do not know how to deal with variable-sized > strings in the struct module in a reasonable way, and thus believe > that this module is incapable of actually supporting them > (unless you use inappropriate trickery).
>> If all your data is comprised of 8-bit bytes, then you don't >> need the struct module.
> Go back to the original message of the OP. It says
> # I have following packet format which I have to send over Bluetooth. > # packet_type (1 byte unsigned) || packet_length (1 byte unsigned) || > # packet_data(variable)
> So yes, all his date is comprised of 8-bit bytes,
He doesn't specify what format the packet_data is, and we all assumed he needed to handle conversion of various data types to/from raw byte-strings.
> and yes, he doesn't need the struct module. Hence I'm puzzled > why people suggest that he uses the struct module.
We all assumed that "packet_data" might contain values of various types such as 16 or 32 bit integers, floating point values -- that packet_data was not solely arbitrary-length strings of 8-bit bytes.
> I think the key answer is "use the string type, it is > appropriate to represent byte oriented data in python" (also > see the subject of this thread)
I, for one, interpreted "byte-oriented" to mean that the data was received/sent as blocks of bytes but needed to be converted into other data types. If the data really is just strings of bytes, and it's sent as strings of bytes, then I have no idea what the OP was asking, since there's nothing that needs to be done with the data.
I wouldn't call this "just fine", though - it involves a % operator to even compute the format string. IMO, it is *much* better not to use the struct module for this kind of problem, and instead rely on regular string concatenation.
> I wouldn't call this "just fine", though - it involves > a % operator to even compute the format string. IMO, > it is *much* better not to use the struct module for this > kind of problem, and instead rely on regular string > concatenation.
If all you need to do is concatenate strings, then you're correct, there's no advantage to using struct or ctypes.
If you need a generic way to deal with arbitrary data types, then that's what the struct and ctypes modules are designed to do. The protocols I've implemented always required the ability to deal with integers greater than 8 bits wide as well as various other data types.
> I wouldn't call this "just fine", though - it involves > a % operator to even compute the format string. IMO, > it is *much* better not to use the struct module for this > kind of problem, and instead rely on regular string > concatenation.
IMO, it would be a good idea if struct.[un]pack supported a variable * length operator that could appear anywhere that an integer constant could appear, as in C's printf etc and Python's % formatting:
dlen = len(data) rawdata = struct.pack("!BB*s", dtype, dlen, dlen, data) # and on the other end of the wire: dtype, dlen = struct.unpack("!BB", rawdata[:2]) data = struct.unpack("!*s", rawdata[2:], dlen) # more than 1 count arg could be used if necessary # *s would return a string # *B, *H, *I, etc would return a tuple of ints in (3.X-speak)
I've worked with variable-length data that looked like len1, len2, len3, data1, data2, data3 and the * gadget would have been very handy: len1, len2, len3 = unpack('!BBB', raw[:3]) data1, data2, data3 = unpack('!*H*i*d', raw[3:], len1, len2, len3)
Note the semantics of '!*H*i*d' would be different from '!8H2i7d' because otherwise you'd need to do: bundle = unpack('!*H*i*d', raw[3:], len1, len2, len3) data1 = bundle[:len1] data2 = bundle[len1:len1+len2] data3 = bundle[len1+len2:]
