Thanks Kenton,
I will check both and prefer iterator version.
Ketan
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Kenton Varda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The version with a single repeated field (which presumably you expect to
> always have size 16) will be slightly more efficient on the wire and
> signif
The version with a single repeated field (which presumably you expect to
always have size 16) will be slightly more efficient on the wire and
significantly more efficient in-memory (assuming you're using C++).
I think you'll find the single repeated field version more usable, too --
you can actuall
The protoc code is licensed under the New BSD license, which is extremely
permissive. You will have to include a copyright notice but that's about
it. Read COPYING.txt for the full license -- it's quite short.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Marc Gravell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> (probably
(probably one for Kenton...)
My current code-generation strategy requires the compiled binary form
of a descriptor - i.e. by running the .proto through protoc.
To make this more convenient, I'd like to include protoc in the
archive, and have my code-generator call protoc automatically (so the
ca
Hi,
Which would be more compact representation for matrix:
message MatrixR
{
repeated double mat; // has to ensure that it passes values
correctly etc.
}
OR
message RowVector
{
required double rx = 1;
required double ry = 2;
required double rz = 3;
required double rw = 4;
}
messag
On Oct 30, 7:55 pm, Marc Gravell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, for the protobuf-net code-generator, I've gone down a
> different route. I load the binary descriptor, and then serialize it
> to xml. I then run this xml through an xslt transformation, and voila!
> code. This has a couple of
