Protocol buffers works best with structured and predictable data. "object"
sounds overly vague IMO. Most protocol buffers will not handle that; due to
demand, I *do* have a feature in protobuf-net that might work for that, but it
basically breaks all the interop benefits of protocol buffers. So it really
depends on what your intention is.
I should emphasise: that scenario is *not* the intended purpose for my
outside-the-spec extension.
Indeed, for that code I'm thinking JSON might work better.
Marc
On 21 Sep 2011, at 22:34, grendo <gre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a very loose data bucket I am using to pass around variable row/
> column type data that I do not know what it will be until runtime.
> Would protobuf have a problem serializing/deserializing it ?
>
> public class DataBucket
> {
> string[] FieldNames {get;set;}
> List<object[]> Rows {get;set;}
> }
>
> --
> 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.
