On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Henner Zeller <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 16:10, maninder batth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I disagree. You could encode field name in the binary. Then at de- > > serialization, you can read the field descriptor and reconstruct the > > field. There is absolutely no need for tags. They are indeed > > cumbersome. > > If you include the field name, then your throw out part of the > advantages of protocol buffers out of the window: speed and compact > binary encoding. This aspect could be mostly mitigated by integrating a metadata header in to files. For systems with this kind of an approach look at Avro & Hessian. -- Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
