I work at Google and I can tell you that proto2 and proto3 freely interoperate. That is, they can reference symbols across versions and generate code that works well together. It is entirely reasonable for a proto2 message to reference a proto3 enum or message, and vice versa, with the exception that proto3 messages cannot reference proto2 enums due to differences in semantics.
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:34 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks. > > I just noticed that proto3 got optional fields > <https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.15.0>. At my > workplace, Square, we've been stuck on proto2 forever, because we have a > mountain of protos that both optional fields and proto option annotations > all over the place. > > Is there an up-to-date summary of the remaining differences between proto2 > and proto3? If proto3 is converging on full proto2 functionality support, > there's a chance we could migrate to proto3, which would be extremely > helpful: proto3 seems better supported in Ruby, for example. > > Thanks, > > Zellyn Hunter > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/45733f56-a82b-4f1e-84bc-71d55e7ef78bn%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/45733f56-a82b-4f1e-84bc-71d55e7ef78bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/CAOj%3Dy3_XGMGJdKyDww%2BQ0Tvj_7vGWwPDtMZi6e0B0D%3De3TyWVw%40mail.gmail.com.
