Another feature that protocol buffers offers is the ability to easily
serialize arbitrary binary data. If you were to use JSON or XML, you
would need to encode the data somehow. Base64 is usually used for
this, which of course will represent the data as a string. I noted
that you said:
"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."
Have you really never needed anything else? How do you transfer
images or sound files?
On Jul 22, 11:21 am, David Yu <david.yu....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Tim Acheson <tim.ache...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you can show me a format which offers faster serialisation or
> > deserialisation than JSON in a .NET application, I'd be impressed! :)
> Not for .NET there isn't. You might wanna try benchmarking it yourself
> againsthttp://code.google.com/p/protobuf-csharp-port/(by a googler)
> > Although I haven't heard anybody experiencing problems with the
> > performance of either direction in .NET with JSON or XML, the
> > libraries provided by the framework offer excellent performance in
> > both directions. :)
> > --
> > 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<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> When the cat is away, the mouse is alone.
> - David Yu
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