On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Alek Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it does give us a lot of cool functionality, like adding the same
> message to two parents, and (yes!) slicing support. I thought this was
> common practice in C++, but it's been quite a while since I've coded it.
Nope, in the C++ world we have to worry excessively about ownership, and we
generally make defensive copies rather than trying to allow an object to be
referenced from two places.
> Is it really that useful to have ByteSize() cached for repeated fields? If
> it's not, we get everything I mentioned above for free. I'm genuinely not
> sure - it only comes up when serializing the message in wire_format.py.
> What do you think?
Yes, it's just as necessary as it is with optional fields. The main problem
is that the size of a message must be written before the message contents
itself. If, while serializing, you call ByteSize() to get this size every
time you write a message, then you'll end up computing the size of
deeply-nested messages many times (once for each outer message within which
they're nested). Caching avoids that problem.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at