That certainly helps. Thanks. I'd suspected what we are doing was unsafe.
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 12:16:26 AM UTC+1, Marc Gravell wrote:
>
> Formally: no.
>
> Practically: almost always
>
> You shouldn't **demand** it.
>
> Basically, it goes like this:
>
> - the spec asks that writers *sh
Formally: no.
Practically: almost always
You shouldn't **demand** it.
Basically, it goes like this:
- the spec asks that writers *should* write fields in order
- the spec asks that readers *must* allow fields in any order
- data can be concatenated as a merge, meaning fields can appear out of
o
I guess I just replied to that thread.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:26 PM wrote:
> (Attempt 2 - I'm not sure if messages to this list and moderated or
> whether my first one just got lost in the ether)
>
> Are protobufs serialised canonically? By that I mean is the same message
> with the same fie
(Attempt 2 - I'm not sure if messages to this list and moderated or whether
my first one just got lost in the ether)
Are protobufs serialised canonically? By that I mean is the same message
with the same fields populated with the same data guaranteed to serialise
to the same sequence of bytes,
