Re: Enhancement: can we get a copy of the documentation?
It's OK, we have enough bandwidth. :) Alternative punchline: It's OK, we scape other people's sites too sometimes. :) On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Alexander Pensky wrote: > > Thanks much! I thought about wget, but I didn't want to scrape your > website without asking first, it seemed kind of antisocial. :) > > > On Apr 10, 3:51 pm, Kenton Varda wrote: > > Using wget (a unix command -- available on Windows using Cygwin), you can > > download the whole site like so: > > > > wget -r -l inf -np -p -khttp:// > code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/index.html > > Options: > > -r = Recursive > > -l inf = Infinite recursion depth > > -np = Don't follow links to parent directories > > -p = Fetch page prerequisites (images, stylesheets, etc., even if they > are > > in parent directories) > > -k = Rewrite links (so that they work when viewing the documents locally) > > > > I ran this command, zipped up the contents, and placed them here: > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf/web/Protocol%20Buffers%20Docu... > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Alexander Pensky > wrote: > > > > > Really I wanted to put this into Issues as an enhancement request, but > > > I couldn't figure out how... > > > > > Would it be possible to take all the Developer Guide pages and put > > > them in a tarball on the Downloads page? Or include them into the > > > source tarball? > > > > > Currently, one can only read the docs at google.com; having them on > > > one's hard drive would come in handy when the development box has > > > little or no internet access. > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Enhancement: can we get a copy of the documentation?
Thanks much! I thought about wget, but I didn't want to scrape your website without asking first, it seemed kind of antisocial. :) On Apr 10, 3:51 pm, Kenton Varda wrote: > Using wget (a unix command -- available on Windows using Cygwin), you can > download the whole site like so: > > wget -r -l inf -np -p -khttp://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/index.html > Options: > -r = Recursive > -l inf = Infinite recursion depth > -np = Don't follow links to parent directories > -p = Fetch page prerequisites (images, stylesheets, etc., even if they are > in parent directories) > -k = Rewrite links (so that they work when viewing the documents locally) > > I ran this command, zipped up the contents, and placed them here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf/web/Protocol%20Buffers%20Docu... > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Alexander Pensky wrote: > > > Really I wanted to put this into Issues as an enhancement request, but > > I couldn't figure out how... > > > Would it be possible to take all the Developer Guide pages and put > > them in a tarball on the Downloads page? Or include them into the > > source tarball? > > > Currently, one can only read the docs at google.com; having them on > > one's hard drive would come in handy when the development box has > > little or no internet access. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Enhancement: can we get a copy of the documentation?
Using wget (a unix command -- available on Windows using Cygwin), you can download the whole site like so: wget -r -l inf -np -p -k http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/index.html Options: -r = Recursive -l inf = Infinite recursion depth -np = Don't follow links to parent directories -p = Fetch page prerequisites (images, stylesheets, etc., even if they are in parent directories) -k = Rewrite links (so that they work when viewing the documents locally) I ran this command, zipped up the contents, and placed them here: http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf/web/Protocol%20Buffers%20Documentation.zip On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Alexander Pensky wrote: > > Really I wanted to put this into Issues as an enhancement request, but > I couldn't figure out how... > > Would it be possible to take all the Developer Guide pages and put > them in a tarball on the Downloads page? Or include them into the > source tarball? > > Currently, one can only read the docs at google.com; having them on > one's hard drive would come in handy when the development box has > little or no internet access. > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Protocol Buffers Vs. XML Fast Infoset
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Alexander Philippou < alexander.philip...@gmail.com> wrote: > The redundancy elimination mechanism of FI is actually a vocabulary > and it works differently than compression algorithms do. I think we define "compression" differently. In my book, "redundancy elimination" and "compression" are pretty much synonymous. It sounds like you are using a more specific definition (LZW?). > FI documents > are good candidates for compression irrespective of whether a > vocabulary is used or not. We've done a few tests with medium/large- > sized documents and protobuf wasn't more compact than FI. Sure, but FI wasn't smaller than protobuf either, was it? I would expect that after applying some sort of LZW compression to *both* documents, they'd come out roughly the same size. (FI would probably have some overhead for self-description but for large documents that wouldn't matter.) Without the LZW applied, perhaps FI is smaller due to its "redundancy elimination" -- I still don't know enough about FI to really understand how it works. However, I suspect protobuf will be much faster to parse and encode, by virtue of being simpler. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Enhancement: can we get a copy of the documentation?
Really I wanted to put this into Issues as an enhancement request, but I couldn't figure out how... Would it be possible to take all the Developer Guide pages and put them in a tarball on the Downloads page? Or include them into the source tarball? Currently, one can only read the docs at google.com; having them on one's hard drive would come in handy when the development box has little or no internet access. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Protobuf-net Serialize problem
Marc,
another issue is that for optional string fields, protogen defaults to
"". Shouldn't it default to null?
optional string clientid = 2;
private string _clientid = "";
[ProtoBuf.ProtoMember(2, IsRequired = false, Name =
@"clientid", DataFormat = ProtoBuf.DataFormat.Default)]
[System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue("")]
public string clientid
{
get { return _clientid; }
set { _clientid = value; }
}
Thanks
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Protocol Buffers Vs. XML Fast Infoset
On Apr 8, 10:15 pm, Kenton Varda wrote: > OK, well, I call that "compression". Try gzipping the final protobuf and FI > documents and comparing the compressed sizes. The protobuf will probably > compress better, so I'd expect the final results to be roughly even. The redundancy elimination mechanism of FI is actually a vocabulary and it works differently than compression algorithms do. FI documents are good candidates for compression irrespective of whether a vocabulary is used or not. We've done a few tests with medium/large- sized documents and protobuf wasn't more compact than FI. Using FI as a WCF message encoding will typically return better compactness than the one reported by FI Converter. In FI Converter there is no awareness of the data types used in the original document being converted so everything is always encoded as literal. However, when FI is used as a WCF message encoding then it is data type aware and so it chooses the representation that's most appropriate for returning the highest compactness for each single value. FI supports binary, literal and restricted alphabet representations; when binary is used FI can downgrade to a smaller range; and the vocabulary can be employed to eliminate repetitions of the same values. I hope this explains how it is possible that Shirish might have better compactness with FI. But also I accept that there are circumstances, especially with very small messages, in which protobuf might have the upper hand. Alexander --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
