Bandwidth use of Protobuf binary representation vs zipped JSON/XML

[Kasper Nielsen]

Hi,

I'm working with some communication channels where bandwidth (UHF and satellite) is the only limiting factor.

And want to employ Protobuf for passing messages back and forth.

However, I'm getting a lot of why don't we just zip JSON/XML questions. People are really not that convinced going down the Protobuf route.

So I was wondering if anyone got some real world papers/numbers that I can cite comparing the bandwidth requirements of the two approaches?

Or as an alternative some really good arguments.

Regards

  Kasper

[Feng Xiao]

This page has listed some advantages of protobuf over xml: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview#whynotxml

For bandwidth, I think zipped protobuf will still have an advantage over zipped JSON/XML. It's better to run a comparison with messages you will actually be using. Protobuf's serialization/parsing performance is much better than JSON/XML, but maybe you don't care much about that. Another thing I really like about protobuf is that it helps you generate a data access class in every language. You only need to write the message definition once in a .proto file and then can easily use it in every language.

 

Regards

  Kasper

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.