In theory I completely agree with you.  :)
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Joshua Haberman <jhaber...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 1, 9:37 am, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> > The official implementations do NOT accept multiple encodings, but it
> would
> > theoretically be possible for them to do so.  This wasn't implemented
> mainly
> > because code size bloat is a big problem and accepting multiple encodings
> > would increase code size -- even users who don't even use [packed=true]
> > would be affected, since they'd still need to generate code which accepts
> > it.
>
> I totally understand this concern.  On the other hand, I'm a bit
> afraid of a precedent that options are part of the interoperability
> contract -- that your options have to match for you to interoperate
> properly.  Most options are things that are more like preferences.
> They are things that one application might *want* to do differently
> than another application, even though the two applications are
> interoperating.  Having some options that can vary and some options
> that must not vary sounds like a recipe for problems.
>
> To me the right answer is to draw a line in the sand and say "options
> can't break interoperability of serialization/deserialization."
> Thoughts?
>
> Josh
>
> > That said, I'm up for reconsidering this decision.
> >
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Joshua Haberman <jhaber...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I was reading the documentation about packed encoding [0] (haven't dug
> > > into the code), and was wondering if parsers are expected to be able
> > > to read packed encoding whether or not [packed=true] is specified.
> > > Unlike any other option (AFAIK), [packed=true] actually changes the
> > > bytes that encoders will output.  It seems like decoders must be
> > > prepared to read either packed or non-packed encoding of repeated
> > > fields.  Is this the case?  The alternative (that [packed=true] is not
> > > interoperable with [packed=false]) seems undesirable.
> >
> > > Josh
> >
> > > [0]
> > >http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/encoding.html#optional
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to