On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Kalki70 <kalki...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe the ASN.1 compiler that you used used too many memory > allocations or was not too fast. There are some very good, like from > OSS Novalka.
I've used both OSS Nokalva's ASN.1 to Java compiler and protobuf in anger. protobuf is at least as fast, provides a better API (especially if you want to do any reflection), and is less buggy than OSS's product. Being able to build protobuf from source makes our build process a lot simpler, too. We actually use both in our system - OSS when we must talk ASN.1 in external protocols, and protobuf for our internal protocols where we are not implementing to an external specification. I think that protobuf's simplicity is a large part of why its implementation is better than the various ASN.1 products out there. ASN.1 seems to be the Ada of protocol description languages, really.. Oliver -- 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.
