I don't think proto3 will replace proto2. You should use the proper one for your scenario. There is few difference in computational efficiency in this case.
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:35 PM William Cheung <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've just started with protobuf. > > I've noticed that using proto3 means that if you set a parameter with > default values (e.g. bool false) it is no longer serialised. For my > application, sending the default value conveys information, so this is > unacceptable as the deserialiser does not know that the variable was set. I > noticed that proto 2 has a 'optional' keyword which seems to do what I > want. I also found a work around in proto 3 in the link below but it is > really ugly. > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33204321/upgrading-protobuf-from-version-2-to-3-incompatible-with-protobuf-default-valu > > My questions are > > What is the long term support plan for proto 2? Will it be abandoned by > google in the future? > What would be computationally more efficient, using proto 2 or using proto > 3 with the work around? > > Thanks > > -- > 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
