That's great news, thanks!!! Looking forward to proto3! Kevin
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Feng Xiao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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.
