On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 07:46, Imagination's End <eda...@disemia.com> wrote:
> Say I have a message used like this:
>
> message old_name { ... }
>
> message wrapper {
> repeated old_name items = 3;
> }
>
> I want to rename old_name to new_name. Is this binary compatible? That
> is, will users of the previous definition be able to read the new
> definition (assuming I leave the fields as is). In particular will
> the "items" be accessible correctly?
Yes. The binary only contains the tag number to identify the fields
(in this case 3), so you're free to rename the fields and message
names.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@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.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@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.
