On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Kasper Nielsen <kaspe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm working with some communication channels where bandwidth (UHF and
> satellite) is the only limiting factor.
> And want to employ Protobuf for passing messages back and forth.
> However, I'm getting a lot of why don't we just zip JSON/XML questions.
> People are really not that convinced going down the Protobuf route.
> So I was wondering if anyone got some real world papers/numbers that I can
> cite comparing the bandwidth requirements of the two approaches?
> Or as an alternative some really good arguments.
This page has listed some advantages of protobuf over xml:
For bandwidth, I think zipped protobuf will still have an advantage over
zipped JSON/XML. It's better to run a comparison with messages you will
actually be using. Protobuf's serialization/parsing performance is much
better than JSON/XML, but maybe you don't care much about that. Another
thing I really like about protobuf is that it helps you generate a data
access class in every language. You only need to write the message
definition once in a .proto file and then can easily use it in every
> 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 email@example.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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.