On Jun 18, 2010, at 17:06 , Kenton Varda wrote:
But I doubt there is really much overhead in constructing a new CodedInputStream on the stack for each message. No heap space is allocated in the process.


If I end up doing some performance intensive stuff with this code, I'll look into it at some point and report back. For now, what I'm doing is plenty fast enough. I was mostly just slightly surprised that I can't do what I do on the Java side.

What we really need is a MessageStream class which handles this kind of stuff at a higher level, but I haven't gotten around to writing such a thing.


Huh. Probably like most people on this list, I have bits and pieces of protocol buffer related "support" code lying around. One of the pieces is something that is like a "MessageStream." It may be a bit too specific for my application at the moment, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to putting some effort into including it in protobuf, or in a protobuf-utils type project.

Evan

--
Evan Jones
http://evanjones.ca/

--
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