On Jun 24, 8:42 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> The end-tag approach is more efficient than your idea -- it's faster (no
> need to count elements at all) and it takes no more space (no need to write
> a count, which makes up for the extra space taken by the end tag).
> But in any case, the encoding is not something we can change at this point,
> since protocol buffers is nothing without backwards-compatibility.

As I read the code of C++ protobuf deserializer I found it supports
end-tag approach using END_GROUP constant -- or I just misunderstood
the code and/or this thread?

>From my experiments it looks like I can stream messages one by one
separating them with END_GROUP tag, but -- again from comments in the
code -- it's deprecated. If "protocol buffers is nothing without
backwards-compatibility", can I assume that existing and future
implementation of C++ and also Java/Python deserializers will support
this approach?

best regards,

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to