I'll try to get to this by the end of the week. On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Kenton Varda<ken...@google.com> wrote: > I just committed the new "lite mode" refactoring for C++ and Java to SVN. > To use the new feature, add this line to your .proto file: > option optimize_for = LITE_RUNTIME; > This will cause protoc to generate code which is just as fast as with > optimize_for = SPEED, but lacks descriptors, reflection, UnknownFieldSet, > and features which are tied to them. This means the code can be linked > against a much smaller subset of the protocol buffers runtime library and > will not spend time at start-up building descriptors. > Currently, the C++ Makefile will compile libprotobuf and libprotobuf-lite as > independent, stand-alone libraries, even though the latter is a subset of > the former. Is this what we want? I'm not sure. If we make libprotobuf > depend on libprotobuf-lite, then users who want the full library will have > to specify *both* when linking their own apps, unless we provide a > "protobuf-config" script or something like that. Complicating things > further, if you app does not use extensions, then extension_set.cc can be > removed from the lite library to make it even smaller, but having three > separate libraries just seems excessive! > For Java, I have not yet updated the Maven POM to separate the libraries. > I'm not sure how -- Greg, can you work on this? "Lite" messages need only > the following classes: > AbstractMessageLite.java > ByteString.java > CodedInputStream.java > CodedOutputStream.java > ExtensionRegistryLite.java > FieldSet.java > GeneratedMessageLite.java > InvalidProtocolBufferException.java > Internal.java > MessageLite.java > UninitializedMessageException.java > WireFormat.java > Numbers > C++, as measured by the "size" command on Linux: > libprotobuf.so: 948k > libprotobuf-lite.so: 148k > libprotobuf-lite.so with extension_set.cc removed: 91k > Java, measured by totalling the sizes of the .class files: > full library: 904k > lite library: 120k > I suspect we can further reduce some of these numbers with some more work. > For instance, an extension-less Java lite library might be as much as 50k > smaller, though will require a bit more work than simply yanking some > classes.
-- Greg Kick Data Liberation & Feedburner Sent from Chicago, IL, United States --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
