Re: [protobuf] Serializing List of Objects
Hello Mark.
Is it possible for me to serialize and deserialize a list directly? Like
this:
public static void Serialize(T obj, string filename)
{
//Serialize
using (FileStream stream = File.Open(filename, FileMode.Create))
{
Serializer.Serialize(stream, obj);
}
}
public static T Deserialize(string filename)
{
//Deserialize
using (FileStream stream = File.Open(filename, FileMode.Open))
{
return Serializer.Deserialize(stream);
}
}
Where T : List
Thank you
- Dan
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 1:51:14 PM UTC+1, Joel Carrier wrote:
>
> Yes it does. Thanks.
>
> Where can I read more about this disabling of list-handling and its
> effects?
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Marc Gravell
>
> > wrote:
>
>> Well, until I get around to re-implementing it for v2, GetProto will
>> just make a quiet apology. But to answer your question, consider an example
>> such as ItemList
>>
>> Item could be (I can't remember how v1 implements this) something
>> like
>>
>> message Item_Customer {
>> optional Customer Item = 1;
>> }
>>
>> On the subject of ItemList - unless you disable list-handling
>> (separate topic), this will be treated *entirely* as just a List -
>> so no specific message is generated. As per my previous comment, such a
>> list is then semantically identical to
>>
>> message SomeWrapper {
>> repeated Item_Customer Items = 1;
>> }
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> On 28 June 2012 13:24, Joel Carrier > >wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the explanation Marc.
>>>
>>> I'm currently investigating some interop issues we're having and I'm
>>> starting to realize that this might be the source of the problem.
>>>
>>> [CollectionDataContract(Name = "ItemList")]
>>> public class ItemList : List> where TItem : class
>>> ...
>>> where
>>>
>>> [DataContract(Name = "Item")]
>>> public class Item where TItem : class
>>> {
>>> [DataMember(Order = 1, Name = "Item")]
>>> public TItem Item { get; set; }
>>> ...
>>>
>>> The TItems are classes generated from .proto files. So we're mixing the
>>> functionality (annotated classes vs. proto files).
>>>
>>> I think we're breaking a lot of "rules" here and I'm wondering how this
>>> could ever generate valid .proto files.
>>> That is, if it were to work, I have trouble picturing what Serializer.
>>> GetProto() might output.
>>>
>>> This does appear to be working between clients using protobuf-net but I
>>> guess what I'm looking for is confirmation that this would probably not
>>> work nicely interop-ing with other Protocol Buffer libraries.
>>>
>>> (Note: I'm new to this stuff, so if I'm not making any sense at all let
>>> me know and I'll return with a smarter question.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:07:49 PM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
The data is of course compatible. A `List` is directly mappable to
.proto via for example:
message SomeOuterMessage {
repeated Foo items = 1;
}
In fact, for that reason, serializing a List will produce
**exactly** the same data on the wire as serializing:
[ProtoContract]
public class Whatever {
[ProtoMember(1)]
public List Items {get;set;}
}
which is (give or take) what you will get if you feed the above .proto
into "protogen" (protobuf-net's entirely optional code generator for
handling .proto definitions)
Marc
On 27 June 2012 16:21, Joel Carrier
> wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Could you elaborate on your note: (note: this is specific to
> protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more widely)
>
> What are the implications if communicating with non-protobuf-net
> targets? (ie. java, python, ... applications)
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:05:49 AM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>>
>> (note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
>> widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
>> property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There
>> also
>> doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
>> "set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list
>> of
>> the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
>>
>> So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
>> related example:
>>
>> [ProtoMember(4)]
>> public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
>> private readonly List orders = new List();
>>
>> Marc
>> (protobuf-net)
>>
>> On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> How can we se
Re: [protobuf] Serializing List of Objects
Hi Marc,
I had a similar question about the serialization of objects using protocol
buffers.
I prefer using a single .proto file for generation of C# and Java file, and
would like to know if my understanding of how to implement a generic list
of objects in the .proto file is right or not.
Here is my .proto file:
package test;
option optimize_for = SPEED;
message Dp
{
optional string com = 1;
optional string arga = 2;
optional string dbName = 3;
optional string fName = 4;
optional string dateTime = 5;
optional string inputdataassembly = 6;
optional string inputDataType = 7;
optional string identity = 8;
enum DataLocation
{
SERVER = 1;
CLIENT = 2;
ADMIN = 3;
}
optional DataLocation datalocation = 9;
optional Object o = 10;
// I want this to be of the type List
message Object
{
repeated Object objects = 1;
}
optional string ipaddress = 11;
optional int32 port = 12;
optional string authGuid = 13;
optional string moduleid = 14;
optional bool queued = 15;
}
Thank you.
Regards,
Amina K
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:05:49 AM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>
> (note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
> widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
> property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There also
> doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
> "set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list of
> the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
>
> So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
> related example:
>
> [ProtoMember(4)]
> public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
> private readonly List orders = new List();
>
> Marc
> (protobuf-net)
>
> On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq >wrote:
>
>> How can we serialize list of objects by using protobuf-net? Is
>> protobuf-net support list of objects like
>> public List(ABC) DEF
>> {
>>get;
>>set;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Protocol Buffers" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/W0yySDcbES8J.
>> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> protobuf+u...@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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/x_xlCL2obnsJ.
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] Serializing List of Objects
Firstly, I must say that I don't generally recommend inheriting from lists
in this context. The code, as an implementation detail, tries to detect
things that look like lists, and switches to treat it as "repeated" data.
Sometimes, pretty rarely, something *looks* like a list, but should be
treated as an object. The important difference is that when handling a list
it serializes the *contents* of the list - it doesn't look at the
properties etc of the list itself. You can switch between the two modes via
the IgnoreListHandling flag on either ProtoContractAttribute or MetaType.
Marc
On 28 June 2012 13:51, Joel Carrier wrote:
> Yes it does. Thanks.
>
> Where can I read more about this disabling of list-handling and its
> effects?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Marc Gravell wrote:
>
>> Well, until I get around to re-implementing it for v2, GetProto will
>> just make a quiet apology. But to answer your question, consider an example
>> such as ItemList
>>
>> Item could be (I can't remember how v1 implements this) something
>> like
>>
>> message Item_Customer {
>> optional Customer Item = 1;
>> }
>>
>> On the subject of ItemList - unless you disable list-handling
>> (separate topic), this will be treated *entirely* as just a List -
>> so no specific message is generated. As per my previous comment, such a
>> list is then semantically identical to
>>
>> message SomeWrapper {
>> repeated Item_Customer Items = 1;
>> }
>>
>> Make sense?
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> On 28 June 2012 13:24, Joel Carrier wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks a lot for the explanation Marc.
>>>
>>> I'm currently investigating some interop issues we're having and I'm
>>> starting to realize that this might be the source of the problem.
>>>
>>> [CollectionDataContract(Name = "ItemList")]
>>> public class ItemList : List> where TItem : class
>>> ...
>>> where
>>>
>>> [DataContract(Name = "Item")]
>>> public class Item where TItem : class
>>> {
>>> [DataMember(Order = 1, Name = "Item")]
>>> public TItem Item { get; set; }
>>> ...
>>>
>>> The TItems are classes generated from .proto files. So we're mixing the
>>> functionality (annotated classes vs. proto files).
>>>
>>> I think we're breaking a lot of "rules" here and I'm wondering how this
>>> could ever generate valid .proto files.
>>> That is, if it were to work, I have trouble picturing what Serializer.
>>> GetProto() might output.
>>>
>>> This does appear to be working between clients using protobuf-net but I
>>> guess what I'm looking for is confirmation that this would probably not
>>> work nicely interop-ing with other Protocol Buffer libraries.
>>>
>>> (Note: I'm new to this stuff, so if I'm not making any sense at all let
>>> me know and I'll return with a smarter question.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:07:49 PM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
The data is of course compatible. A `List` is directly mappable to
.proto via for example:
message SomeOuterMessage {
repeated Foo items = 1;
}
In fact, for that reason, serializing a List will produce
**exactly** the same data on the wire as serializing:
[ProtoContract]
public class Whatever {
[ProtoMember(1)]
public List Items {get;set;}
}
which is (give or take) what you will get if you feed the above .proto
into "protogen" (protobuf-net's entirely optional code generator for
handling .proto definitions)
Marc
On 27 June 2012 16:21, Joel Carrier wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Could you elaborate on your note: (note: this is specific to
> protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more widely)
>
> What are the implications if communicating with non-protobuf-net
> targets? (ie. java, python, ... applications)
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:05:49 AM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>>
>> (note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
>> widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
>> property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There also
>> doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
>> "set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list of
>> the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
>>
>> So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
>> related example:
>>
>> [ProtoMember(4)]
>> public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
>> private readonly List orders = new List();
>>
>> Marc
>> (protobuf-net)
>>
>> On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq wrote:
>>
>>> How can we serialize list of objects by using protobuf-net? Is
>>> protobuf-net support list of objects like
>>> public List(ABC) DEF
>
Re: [protobuf] Serializing List of Objects
Yes it does. Thanks.
Where can I read more about this disabling of list-handling and its effects?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Marc Gravell wrote:
> Well, until I get around to re-implementing it for v2, GetProto will
> just make a quiet apology. But to answer your question, consider an example
> such as ItemList
>
> Item could be (I can't remember how v1 implements this) something
> like
>
> message Item_Customer {
> optional Customer Item = 1;
> }
>
> On the subject of ItemList - unless you disable list-handling
> (separate topic), this will be treated *entirely* as just a List -
> so no specific message is generated. As per my previous comment, such a
> list is then semantically identical to
>
> message SomeWrapper {
> repeated Item_Customer Items = 1;
> }
>
> Make sense?
>
> Marc
>
> On 28 June 2012 13:24, Joel Carrier wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot for the explanation Marc.
>>
>> I'm currently investigating some interop issues we're having and I'm
>> starting to realize that this might be the source of the problem.
>>
>> [CollectionDataContract(Name = "ItemList")]
>> public class ItemList : List> where TItem : class
>> ...
>> where
>>
>> [DataContract(Name = "Item")]
>> public class Item where TItem : class
>> {
>> [DataMember(Order = 1, Name = "Item")]
>> public TItem Item { get; set; }
>> ...
>>
>> The TItems are classes generated from .proto files. So we're mixing the
>> functionality (annotated classes vs. proto files).
>>
>> I think we're breaking a lot of "rules" here and I'm wondering how this
>> could ever generate valid .proto files.
>> That is, if it were to work, I have trouble picturing what Serializer.
>> GetProto() might output.
>>
>> This does appear to be working between clients using protobuf-net but I
>> guess what I'm looking for is confirmation that this would probably not
>> work nicely interop-ing with other Protocol Buffer libraries.
>>
>> (Note: I'm new to this stuff, so if I'm not making any sense at all let
>> me know and I'll return with a smarter question.)
>>
>>
>> Joel
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:07:49 PM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>>>
>>> The data is of course compatible. A `List` is directly mappable to
>>> .proto via for example:
>>>
>>> message SomeOuterMessage {
>>> repeated Foo items = 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> In fact, for that reason, serializing a List will produce
>>> **exactly** the same data on the wire as serializing:
>>>
>>> [ProtoContract]
>>> public class Whatever {
>>> [ProtoMember(1)]
>>> public List Items {get;set;}
>>> }
>>>
>>> which is (give or take) what you will get if you feed the above .proto
>>> into "protogen" (protobuf-net's entirely optional code generator for
>>> handling .proto definitions)
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 June 2012 16:21, Joel Carrier wrote:
>>>
Hi Marc,
Could you elaborate on your note: (note: this is specific to
protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more widely)
What are the implications if communicating with non-protobuf-net
targets? (ie. java, python, ... applications)
Joel
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:05:49 AM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>
> (note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
> widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
> property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There also
> doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
> "set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list of
> the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
>
> So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
> related example:
>
> [ProtoMember(4)]
> public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
> private readonly List orders = new List();
>
> Marc
> (protobuf-net)
>
> On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq wrote:
>
>> How can we serialize list of objects by using protobuf-net? Is
>> protobuf-net support list of objects like
>> public List(ABC) DEF
>> {
>>get;
>>set;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>> **ms**g/protobuf/-/W0yySDcbES8J
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscribe@**
>> googlegro**ups.com .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group**/protobuf?hl=en
>> .
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Marc
>
>>>
Re: [protobuf] Serializing List of Objects
Well, until I get around to re-implementing it for v2, GetProto will
just make a quiet apology. But to answer your question, consider an example
such as ItemList
Item could be (I can't remember how v1 implements this) something
like
message Item_Customer {
optional Customer Item = 1;
}
On the subject of ItemList - unless you disable list-handling
(separate topic), this will be treated *entirely* as just a List -
so no specific message is generated. As per my previous comment, such a
list is then semantically identical to
message SomeWrapper {
repeated Item_Customer Items = 1;
}
Make sense?
Marc
On 28 June 2012 13:24, Joel Carrier wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the explanation Marc.
>
> I'm currently investigating some interop issues we're having and I'm
> starting to realize that this might be the source of the problem.
>
> [CollectionDataContract(Name = "ItemList")]
> public class ItemList : List> where TItem : class
> ...
> where
>
> [DataContract(Name = "Item")]
> public class Item where TItem : class
> {
> [DataMember(Order = 1, Name = "Item")]
> public TItem Item { get; set; }
> ...
>
> The TItems are classes generated from .proto files. So we're mixing the
> functionality (annotated classes vs. proto files).
>
> I think we're breaking a lot of "rules" here and I'm wondering how this
> could ever generate valid .proto files.
> That is, if it were to work, I have trouble picturing what Serializer.
> GetProto() might output.
>
> This does appear to be working between clients using protobuf-net but I
> guess what I'm looking for is confirmation that this would probably not
> work nicely interop-ing with other Protocol Buffer libraries.
>
> (Note: I'm new to this stuff, so if I'm not making any sense at all let me
> know and I'll return with a smarter question.)
>
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:07:49 PM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>>
>> The data is of course compatible. A `List` is directly mappable to
>> .proto via for example:
>>
>> message SomeOuterMessage {
>> repeated Foo items = 1;
>> }
>>
>> In fact, for that reason, serializing a List will produce
>> **exactly** the same data on the wire as serializing:
>>
>> [ProtoContract]
>> public class Whatever {
>> [ProtoMember(1)]
>> public List Items {get;set;}
>> }
>>
>> which is (give or take) what you will get if you feed the above .proto
>> into "protogen" (protobuf-net's entirely optional code generator for
>> handling .proto definitions)
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27 June 2012 16:21, Joel Carrier wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate on your note: (note: this is specific to
>>> protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more widely)
>>>
>>> What are the implications if communicating with non-protobuf-net
>>> targets? (ie. java, python, ... applications)
>>>
>>> Joel
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:05:49 AM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
(note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There also
doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
"set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list of
the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
related example:
[ProtoMember(4)]
public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
private readonly List orders = new List();
Marc
(protobuf-net)
On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq wrote:
> How can we serialize list of objects by using protobuf-net? Is
> protobuf-net support list of objects like
> public List(ABC) DEF
> {
>get;
>set;
> }
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/*
> *ms**g/protobuf/-/W0yySDcbES8J
> .
> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscribe@**
> googlegro**ups.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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
>>> msg/protobuf/-/2pcXp7q9LCcJ
>>> .
>>>
>>> To post to this group, send email to p
Re: [protobuf] Serializing List of Objects
Thanks a lot for the explanation Marc.
I'm currently investigating some interop issues we're having and I'm
starting to realize that this might be the source of the problem.
[CollectionDataContract(Name = "ItemList")]
public class ItemList : List> where TItem : class
...
where
[DataContract(Name = "Item")]
public class Item where TItem : class
{
[DataMember(Order = 1, Name = "Item")]
public TItem Item { get; set; }
...
The TItems are classes generated from .proto files. So we're mixing the
functionality (annotated classes vs. proto files).
I think we're breaking a lot of "rules" here and I'm wondering how this
could ever generate valid .proto files.
That is, if it were to work, I have trouble picturing what Serializer.
GetProto() might output.
This does appear to be working between clients using protobuf-net but I
guess what I'm looking for is confirmation that this would probably not
work nicely interop-ing with other Protocol Buffer libraries.
(Note: I'm new to this stuff, so if I'm not making any sense at all let me
know and I'll return with a smarter question.)
Joel
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:07:49 PM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>
> The data is of course compatible. A `List` is directly mappable to
> .proto via for example:
>
> message SomeOuterMessage {
> repeated Foo items = 1;
> }
>
> In fact, for that reason, serializing a List will produce **exactly**
> the same data on the wire as serializing:
>
> [ProtoContract]
> public class Whatever {
> [ProtoMember(1)]
> public List Items {get;set;}
> }
>
> which is (give or take) what you will get if you feed the above .proto
> into "protogen" (protobuf-net's entirely optional code generator for
> handling .proto definitions)
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> On 27 June 2012 16:21, Joel Carrier wrote:
>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> Could you elaborate on your note: (note: this is specific to
>> protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more widely)
>>
>> What are the implications if communicating with non-protobuf-net targets?
>> (ie. java, python, ... applications)
>>
>> Joel
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:05:49 AM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>>>
>>> (note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
>>> widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
>>> property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There also
>>> doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
>>> "set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list of
>>> the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
>>>
>>> So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
>>> related example:
>>>
>>> [ProtoMember(4)]
>>> public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
>>> private readonly List orders = new List();
>>>
>>> Marc
>>> (protobuf-net)
>>>
>>> On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq wrote:
>>>
How can we serialize list of objects by using protobuf-net? Is
protobuf-net support list of objects like
public List(ABC) DEF
{
get;
set;
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
msg/protobuf/-/W0yySDcbES8J
.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscribe@**
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 view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/2pcXp7q9LCcJ.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Marc
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/SUzHf4_n0O4J.
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] Serializing List of Objects
The data is of course compatible. A `List` is directly mappable to
.proto via for example:
message SomeOuterMessage {
repeated Foo items = 1;
}
In fact, for that reason, serializing a List will produce **exactly**
the same data on the wire as serializing:
[ProtoContract]
public class Whatever {
[ProtoMember(1)]
public List Items {get;set;}
}
which is (give or take) what you will get if you feed the above .proto into
"protogen" (protobuf-net's entirely optional code generator for handling
.proto definitions)
Marc
On 27 June 2012 16:21, Joel Carrier wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Could you elaborate on your note: (note: this is specific to
> protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more widely)
>
> What are the implications if communicating with non-protobuf-net targets?
> (ie. java, python, ... applications)
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:05:49 AM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>>
>> (note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
>> widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
>> property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There also
>> doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
>> "set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list of
>> the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
>>
>> So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
>> related example:
>>
>> [ProtoMember(4)]
>> public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
>> private readonly List orders = new List();
>>
>> Marc
>> (protobuf-net)
>>
>> On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq wrote:
>>
>>> How can we serialize list of objects by using protobuf-net? Is
>>> protobuf-net support list of objects like
>>> public List(ABC) DEF
>>> {
>>>get;
>>>set;
>>> }
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
>>> msg/protobuf/-/W0yySDcbES8J
>>> .
>>> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscribe@**
>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/2pcXp7q9LCcJ.
>
> 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.
>
--
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 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] Serializing List of Objects
Hi Marc,
Could you elaborate on your note: (note: this is specific to protobuf-net,
not "protocol buffers" more widely)
What are the implications if communicating with non-protobuf-net targets?
(ie. java, python, ... applications)
Joel
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:05:49 AM UTC-4, Marc Gravell wrote:
>
> (note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
> widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
> property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There also
> doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
> "set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list of
> the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
>
> So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
> related example:
>
> [ProtoMember(4)]
> public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
> private readonly List orders = new List();
>
> Marc
> (protobuf-net)
>
> On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq wrote:
>
>> How can we serialize list of objects by using protobuf-net? Is
>> protobuf-net support list of objects like
>> public List(ABC) DEF
>> {
>>get;
>>set;
>> }
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Protocol Buffers" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/W0yySDcbES8J.
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Marc
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/2pcXp7q9LCcJ.
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] Serializing List of Objects
(note: this is specific to protobuf-net, not "protocol buffers" more
widely), but yes: that (a generic list) would work fine, as long as the
property has been marked for serialization and given a number. There also
doesn't need to be a "set" accessor, although it can make full use of a
"set" - i.e. if it finds the list is "null", it will create a new list of
the appropriate type and use the "set" to update the object.
So, your code would be fine if it has been designated a number, or a
related example:
[ProtoMember(4)]
public List Orders { get { return orders; } }
private readonly List orders = new List();
Marc
(protobuf-net)
On 20 June 2012 13:08, Farooq Mushtaq wrote:
> How can we serialize list of objects by using protobuf-net? Is
> protobuf-net support list of objects like
> public List(ABC) DEF
> {
>get;
>set;
> }
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/W0yySDcbES8J.
> 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.
>
--
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 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.
