On 28 February 2010 18:09, Henner Zeller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 They're just put out a more sophisticated explanation of their project's existence: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/KirksRants/~3/8IRgSRLTNMs/whence-fudge-why-not-just-useextend.html
-- 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.
