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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
