Thank you for your answer ksamdev Yes you are righ I am working on an infrastructure for several different components of my company's software And although it is not that much generic it does seem to me that protobuf will not do that much job for me as I was expected at the begining...
Still, I can't agree with you that Protobuf is "simple storage". If it is than I would say that implementation is too expensive for such a simple goal... Both in supplied code (source and binary) and in code required to be written by a client But that is my personal opinion of course... On Mar 21, 6:34 pm, ksamdev <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I guess, ProtoBuf was made for use as a very simple data container from the > very beginning. User (programmer) is supposed to write wrappers around these > containers. AFAIK, there is no access level control, all set/get methods are > public. > > Don't forget, that ProtoBuf is only simple way to (re-)store data. > > It seems, that you are trying to have a very generic use-case: Automatic > serialization/deserialization of complex structures with inheritance. The > next logical question would be access level, etc. All that would complicate > things and is not what ProtoBuf is made for. -- 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.
