Re: [protobuf] Migrating legacy code to use Protobuff

Thanks Marc for the recommendation. Just for curiosity's sake if i am using the binary formatter (which the module is by the way) what difference does it make to set the RemotingFormat to binary ? I am not looking for a super specific answer. I am just trying to understand what kind of change

Re: [protobuf] Migrating legacy code to use Protobuff

Great! Give that a go, and see if it gets you what you need. As a footnote: I advocate *not* using data tables as a data transfer tool, except in very specific circumstances (such as ad-hoc query systems where the structure is very flexible). But that is a huge thing to change. On 14 Feb 2018

Re: [protobuf] Migrating legacy code to use Protobuff

I see no remting format set. Looks like it used the default xml format. On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:11 AM, Marc Gravell wrote: > Protobuf doesn't touch security, so we can ignore that one. > > Modelling datasets/DataTable is awkward. It isn't really a natural fit, > but

Re: [protobuf] Migrating legacy code to use Protobuff

Protobuf doesn't touch security, so we can ignore that one. Modelling datasets/DataTable is awkward. It isn't really a natural fit, but it can be manually forced. However, the first thing I'd say is: have you set the "RemotingFormat" on the dataset to **binary** before using your existing

[protobuf] Migrating legacy code to use Protobuff

So i work in a legacy Visual Basic project. It is a client server application. The client application sends up some table data to the server that persists to a file system. A separate windows service then reads this data and saves to the server database. Now the data that is sent up from the