That's great news, thanks!!! Looking forward to proto3!

Kevin

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Feng Xiao <xiaof...@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Kevin Baker <kba...@gmail.com> 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 <jswi...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to