Thanks Marc. I'm just using core serialization. I resue the same PB classes on verious different c# apps, and since using them on silverlight, needed to introduce the lightFramework option. I wanted to avoid having to compile everything twice.


On 08/06/10 21:14, Marc Gravell wrote:
It omits:

[Serializable] against types (for use if you are using protobuf-net **within** BinaryFormatter, perhaps for remoting purposes) [Browsable(false)] against the "{name}Specified" properties that help guide XmlSerializer [ProtoBehavior] against operation-contracts (since Silverlight etc doesn't support this WCF trick)

If you are just using the core serialization features, and aren't co-using the types with BinaryFormatter, XmlSerializer or WCF, then you should be fine. I just like the generated types to be as compatible as possible until there are good reasons not to be. The light frameworks provide those reasons.

Marc

On 8 June 2010 20:33, Stuart <stu...@stu.org.uk <mailto:stu...@stu.org.uk>> wrote:

    If I use the -p:lightFramework option on protogen.exe, does anything
    important get left out for use on the full framework?

    --
    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
    <mailto:protobuf@googlegroups.com>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.




--
Regards,

Marc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol 
Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@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.

Reply via email to