Hi Ari, Looks like Protostuff works faster than Protobuf in some cases. For example Serializers (no shared refs) and Cross Lang Binary Serializers sections here http://hperadin.github.io/jvm-serializers-report/report.html
In our case we need to serialize graph of objects (Full Object Graph Serializers section in link above). Protobuf can't do it out of the box but Protostuff can. In my implementation I use protostuff-graph-runtime which generates a schema from objects at runtime and caches it. Protostuff schema is something like .proto files but in Java: http://www.protostuff.io/documentation/schema/ Runtime schema: http://www.protostuff.io/documentation/runtime-schema/ As you could see in benchmarks there is a small difference in efficiency between protostuff-graph and protostuff-graph-runtime. The ser/deser overhead is related to runtime schema generation. The size penalty is that Protostuff adds class name for objects and than uses those for find appropriate classes via reflection. Hessian also adds fields names so the size of Hessian serialization is much bigger. In my small example with selection of 6 objects Hessian serialization size is more than 2400 bytes while Protostuff runtime is about 800 bytes. If we don't want to have ser/deser and size overhead we could find a way to generate schemas via Velocity. And we should provide schemas for some Cayenne classes. But it will require a lot of efforts. 2016-05-05 13:44 GMT+03:00 Aristedes Maniatis <a...@maniatis.org>: > On 5/05/2016 7:35pm, Savva Kolbachev wrote: > > Protostuff (licensed under Apache 2.0 licence) is based on Google's > > Protocol-Buffers (Protobuf) but has some optimizations and some cool > things > > like runtime serialization graph of objects (like Hessian). It also could > > generate schema on runtime so we shouldn't define .proto files although > it > > might increase efficiency. It works faster than Hessian and could handle > > Java8 Date and Time types. Here is some benchmarks. Take a look at Full > > Object Graph Serializers section. > > http://hperadin.github.io/jvm-serializers-report/report.html > > https://github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/wiki > > According to those benchmarks there appears to be no performance or size > penalty to using protostuff over protobuffers. Am I reading that right? > > I don't really understand... doesn't the serialiser have to construct a > .proto definition and then include it in the message? So shouldn't it be > faster/smaller to predefine these? > > If we did, we could create them with velocity in the same way we create > Java _superclasses today. Fairly trivial I'm guessing. > > Ari > > > -- > --------------------------> > Aristedes Maniatis > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A > -- Thanks and Regards Savva Kolbachev
