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 zel...@gmail.com <zel...@gmail.com> 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/CAOj%3Dy3_XGMGJdKyDww%2BQ0Tvj_7vGWwPDtMZi6e0B0D%3De3TyWVw%40mail.gmail.com.
