On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Henner Zeller <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 14:56, Alsmom2005 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Is it ok if the serialization is made using libprotobuf library and > > the deserialization (on the other end) is made using code built with > > libprotobuf-lite library ? That meaning 2 .proto files (the only > > difference bw those two file is that one contains 'option optimize_for > > = LITE_RUNTIME') . > > Yes. There is no difference in the serialization on the wire. The only > difference is the 'heavyness' of the API. There is one semantic difference that affects the wire format: the C++ lite-runtime does not preserve unrecognized fields if a message with unrecognized fields is deserialized and then re-serialized. > > > > Thank you in advance! > > > > -- > > 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]<protobuf%[email protected]> > . > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > 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]<protobuf%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > > -- 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.
