Its not really that big a deal. If you've got it working with DataContractJsonSerializer then it shld be a drop in replacement.(eg install package and replace your serialize/deserialize calls)
I understand what you're saying about using somethings inside the framework but the protobuf library exists *because* of the shortcomings of the framework. (protobuf-net.dll (154Kb) is small and has no other dependencies) Check this out for 'real world' data: (1/3 of the size and miles quicker on serialization/deserialization vs DCJS) wrap one up?? Northwind A more realistic performance metric is obtained using a Northwind data-extract via LINQ-to-SQL; in this case we can't present binary formatter numbers (BinaryFormatter / SoapFormatter) because some of the classes involved (from LINQ-to-SQL) do not support such usage. Serializersizeserializedeserializeprotobuf-net (1)133,0105,77913,224protobuf-net (2)132,2634,65714,045proto# <http://code.google.com/p/protosharp/> (3) 130,1114,59814,939DataContractSerializer736,57415,10071,688 DataContractJsonSerializer490,42529,399136,421 http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-net/wiki/Performance On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Greg Keogh <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you had a look at ProtoBuffers what Wal recommended? >>> >> > Yes, I read a few general and technical articles and it's all very > interesting. However, it takes me down another foreign path that I might > have to study and commit myself to. You've heard me complain before about > the zoo of kits and "standards" out there, and I just can't face another > one at the moment. I was looking for an answer inside the Framework -- Greg >
