#x27;d be really surprised if a CRC ended up being more performant than a
single branch to see if the mod message exists if I'm understanding your
situation correctly.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:36 PM, a_teammate wrote:
> Am Montag, 20. Juni 2016 20:50:17 UTC+2 schrie
much
>> simpler logic already introduced or invented to better make protobuf
>> message version independent, if yes we would be happy to hear them!
>>
>> Thanks in advance and for reading all this stuff :)
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subs
ightly more memory?
>
>
> Well: Maybe we totally ask the wrong questions here and theres a much
> simpler logic already introduced or invented to better make protobuf
> message version independent, if yes we would be happy to hear them!
>
> Thanks in advance and for reading all
c.
>
> Any advice, or is there a proper place to file a bug?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to protobu
a choice made
with the encoding and has nothing to do with JSON itself. Do those JSON
blobs also lose forward compatibility when the schema changes?
Thanks for the discussion,
J
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 2016, at 10:01 PM, Jeremy O
you can use that technique there as well.
>
> Finally, remember that proto2 is not going away: If proto2 assumptions
> are deeply baked into your systems, you can keep using it. protoc will
> continue to support it for a very long time.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
>
>
ail to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> You recei
have switched everything back to proto2, which
despite some inconvenience I believe is more feature complete and
superior to proto3 at this time.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:20 PM, 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:32:07 PM UTC-7, Je
other disadvantages, e.g., extra copies ...
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Jeremy Ong wrote:
>
>> Neither are appropriate in my use case unfortunately. I want to be
>> able to tag any message with data in a field range special within the
>> organization. The
Hi google pb,
I was wondering if an interface exists for specifying that I do not want
the proto3 serialization or deserialization to discard unknown fields. My
understanding was that this change was made from proto2 to proto3, and is a
pretty severe restriction if there are no ways around it.
10 matches
Mail list logo
