On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 09:13, Adewale Oshineye <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > Have you seen this: http://www.fudgemsg.org/display/FDG/Fudge+Proto > which claims to be compatible with the syntax of protobufs but use > different on-disk and on-the-wire representations?
Looks like they fell into the trap of wanting to provide self-description (with a pretty high overhead per message) and, worse, message inheritance. -h -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
