Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Protocol Buffers
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion encoding of embedded messages and repeated elements
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Kenton Varda  
View profile  
 More options Jun 25 2009, 1:05 pm
From: Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:05:25 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jun 25 2009 1:05 pm
Subject: Re: encoding of embedded messages and repeated elements
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Yes, "groups" are never going to fully go away.  But we recommend against
using them in new code.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Piotr Findeisen
<piotr.findei...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi!

> On Jun 24, 8:42 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> > The end-tag approach is more efficient than your idea -- it's faster (no
> > need to count elements at all) and it takes no more space (no need to
> write
> > a count, which makes up for the extra space taken by the end tag).
> > But in any case, the encoding is not something we can change at this
> point,
> > since protocol buffers is nothing without backwards-compatibility.

> As I read the code of C++ protobuf deserializer I found it supports
> end-tag approach using END_GROUP constant -- or I just misunderstood
> the code and/or this thread?

> From my experiments it looks like I can stream messages one by one
> separating them with END_GROUP tag, but -- again from comments in the
> code -- it's deprecated. If "protocol buffers is nothing without
> backwards-compatibility", can I assume that existing and future
> implementation of C++ and also Java/Python deserializers will support
> this approach?

> best regards,
> Piotr


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google