Yes, "groups" are never going to fully go away.  But we recommend against
using them in new code.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Piotr Findeisen

> Hi!
> On Jun 24, 8:42 pm, Kenton Varda <> 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to