On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Kevin Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Thanks for all your work with protobuf. I am excited about the changes > with proto3 that will reduce errors (no forgetting to set has_* in nanopb, > yay!) and will make mapping into new languages much simpler, helping our > interop case a lot. > > My question is: We are currently using protobuf pretty extensively and it > looks like we will not be impacted by any changes in proto3 in our proto > files (all fields being present, removal of required, default values, etc.) > Does this mean our existing proto2 applications are compatible on-the-wire > with proto3? > Yes. > How upwards-compatible is proto3 with proto2? > Proto3 uses the same wire-format as proto2. A proto2 application should be able to parse the output of a proto3 server using the same .proto definition (only differing in syntax version). It's also true vice versa. > > Of course I will test this as well but I was wondering if there are any > planned breakages of the wire format or if they will be compatibly phased > in. > There is no planned wire-format changes for proto3. > > Thanks, > Kevin > > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 10:04:30 PM UTC-6, Feng Xiao wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Swigart <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't understand. If a message is a simple struct then the generated >>> wrapper code would populate it with the default as defined by the proto it >>> was compiled with wouldn't it? Are you suggesting that the implementation >>> on different platforms would lack the wrapper objects generated by protobuf? >> >> There may be languages whose protobuf implementation would not be able to >> efficiently support these features. Note that these decisions are not made >> based on the current languages that we support, but based on that we are >> going to support a much wider range of languages. >> >> >>> As long as you have that you have the default value. This rationale >>> doesn't make sense. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Protocol Buffers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
