1. What happens when you need to read/write your messages in Java? You'd
either need to rewrite all your classes or work with ugly generic JSON or
XML parse trees.
2. Protobuf encoding and decoding is much, much faster than JSON or XML,
and the encoded messages are much smaller, particularly for non-textual data
(numbers, binary blobs, etc.).
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Tim Acheson <tim.ache...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I generally create web services using WCF or ASP.NET MVC. I don't get
> the point of "Protocol Buffers". Am I missing something?
> Out of the box, WCF web services and ASP.NET MVC actions serialise my
> objects to JSON or XML, using the serialisation libraries provided by
> the framework. I don't need to do anything to achieve "encoding
> structured data in an efficient yet extensible format" -- I just
> define my objects as normal and the .NET framework does everything for
> I don't need to write any code to do the serialisation, either. I just
> define the return type of the web method in my WCF project, or define
> an ASP.NET MVC Action that returns the object. The framework does the
> Also, I rarely come accross a web service that returns anything other
> than strings, 32-bit integers and booleans. If I did, I'd probably
> question the architecture.
> Perhaps somebody could explain why I would want or need to use
> Protocol Buffers?
> Thanks! :)
> 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
> For more options, visit this group at
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
For more options, visit this group at