Thanks Marc. I'm just using core serialization. I resue the same PB
classes on verious different c# apps, and since using them on
silverlight, needed to introduce the lightFramework option. I wanted to
avoid having to compile everything twice.
On 08/06/10 21:14, Marc Gravell wrote:
It omits:
[Serializable] against types (for use if you are using protobuf-net
**within** BinaryFormatter, perhaps for remoting purposes)
[Browsable(false)] against the "{name}Specified" properties that help
guide XmlSerializer
[ProtoBehavior] against operation-contracts (since Silverlight etc
doesn't support this WCF trick)
If you are just using the core serialization features, and aren't
co-using the types with BinaryFormatter, XmlSerializer or WCF, then
you should be fine. I just like the generated types to be as
compatible as possible until there are good reasons not to be. The
light frameworks provide those reasons.
Marc
On 8 June 2010 20:33, Stuart <stu...@stu.org.uk
<mailto:stu...@stu.org.uk>> wrote:
If I use the -p:lightFramework option on protogen.exe, does anything
important get left out for use on the full framework?
--
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
<mailto:protobuf@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
--
Regards,
Marc
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol
Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@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.
