TextFormat is used extensively within Google, often for exactly the purpose
you describe. It should work well, though I'd recommend keeping the files
in UTF8 to avoid localisation issues.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Dan drtet...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there.
I'm wondering what the state of TextFormat support is in protocol
buffers and if it is and will remain a fully supported option.
Among other things, I'm thinking of using it as a way of storing
configuration/state for objects in a message based system in an easy
to read format that can also be serialised efficiently to binary when
needed. Does this seem like a reasonable use for PB or could there be
problems with this approach? Would there be any issues with
localisation for string fields by doing this?
Thanks for the advice.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comprotobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
