Adam, I understand there is no *current* plan to deprecate proto2. But is it really expected to be supported forever?
If that's the case, I suppose the only reason to choose proto3 over proto2 (if you happen to want the features and semantics of proto2) might be that not all languages/runtimes have support for proto2. Though I thought this was a short/medium-term issue. If all languages/runtimes eventually support both, it seems like a strange decision to continue supporting both indefinitely. ---- *Josh Humphries* jh...@bluegosling.com On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Adam Cozzette <acozze...@google.com> wrote: > Actually we have no plans to deprecate proto2 and we are still actively > developing it, so you can really choose either one without having to worry > about support going away. > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Josh Humphries <jh...@bluegosling.com> > wrote: > >> I think proto3 was intended to be simpler -- an evolution of protobuf in >> a direction that is more refined and elides superfluous features. >> Eventually (though not likely any time soon), support for proto2 will go >> away. >> >> The main omission in proto3 that I personally felt strongly about was the >> lack of preserving unknown fields. But that functionality has been restored >> for many languages/runtimes in 3.5 (and coming soon, hopefully, for Go and >> the others). >> >> All of the other omissions in proto3 have alternate >> solutions/work-arounds that aren't baked into the language (like wrapper >> types and Any), which shows that these features didn't truly need to be >> language features to begin with. So it allows the language itself to remain >> simple, which means libraries/tooling are simpler to build on top. >> >> So a big advantage of proto3 is simplicity (and for some >> languages/runtimes, that will translate into improved performance). And >> another advantage is future compatibility (since, in all likelihood, proto2 >> will eventually go away.) >> >> >> If creating new files, it makes sense to use proto3. If you already have >> a corpus of proto2 files, a reasonable migration path forward is to start >> evolving them to proto3 (or, if the languages/runtimes you use don't yet >> preserve unrecognized fields, wait for that functionality to be fully >> implemented everywhere and then start evolving). >> >> - Make required fields optional. Required fields have always been >> dangerous. If a field is required in your protocol, it can be enforced in >> application code instead of in the de-serialization logic of the protobuf >> runtime. >> - Use Any instead of extensions. An extension range can generally be >> replaced with a repeated Any field. Extensions with scalar types will have >> to be "boxed" into single-field messages. >> - Use wrapper types for scalar fields where absence must be >> distinguishable from zero. >> - Usages of default values can be changed to use wrapper types and >> application logic that decides non-zero values to use when the field is >> not >> present. >> - Groups should be replaced with nested messages. >> >> Once a file is no longer using any proto2 features, it can be changed to >> proto3 syntax. Unfortunately, there is not yet a way to incrementally move >> to proto3. Once you change the syntax of the file, the generated code will >> change, and all clients of that generated code must be changed atomically >> in order to compile (at least for languages/runtimes where generated code >> for the two syntaxes is materially different/incompatible). I would hope >> that this is something that will be addressed in future versions of >> protobuf, to facilitate migrations away from proto2. >> >> >> ---- >> *Josh Humphries* >> jh...@bluegosling.com >> >> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 2:17 PM, ajcurtis84 <ajcurti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thank you everyone for all the great input! >>> >>> Based on this discussion, what is the advantage of using proto3? It >>> appears that proto2 is more feature rich. JSON isn't a compelling reason.... >>> >>> 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. >>> 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. >> 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
