Hi! 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, Piotr --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
