[protobuf] protobuf plugin for Intellij IDEA

Hello everybody, I developed Intellij IDEA plugin for Protocol Buffers. Plugin available in Community and Ultimate edition. You can download it throw IDE plugin manager or from plugin page - http://plugins.intellij.net/plugin/?ideaid=4942. http://github.com/nnmatveev/idea-plugin-protobuf -

[protobuf] Issue 182 in protobuf: chromium protoc.exe linker errors when compiled, vs2005

Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 182 by primemarshal: chromium protoc.exe linker errors when compiled, vs2005 http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=182 What steps will reproduce the problem? 1.when compiled protoc project in chromium

[protobuf] announce: protobuf-c group

I admit: I could have been a little more clever in the name. But if you are interested in protobuf-c, or if you have questions specific to these C bindings, please use that forum! That way, I'll see it... Here's the link: http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf-c/ cheers, dave -- You

[protobuf] serialization size from 2.0.x to 2.3.x, also message design best practices

Should I see smaller serialization sizes going from 2.0.x to 2.3? I was hoping to, and I compiled a sample message to compare serialization sizes between versions. The size was the same. The sample message has a number of different data types. I notice in the changelog that string serialization

Re: [protobuf] protobuf plugin for Intellij IDEA

I've added this to the wiki: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/ThirdPartyAddOns On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Nikolay Matveev nnmatv...@gmail.comwrote: Hello everybody, I developed Intellij IDEA plugin for Protocol Buffers. Plugin available in Community and Ultimate edition. You

Re: [protobuf] serialization size from 2.0.x to 2.3.x, also message design best practices

No revision of protobufs is ever likely to change the serialized size of existing messages, because doing so would presumably break backwards compatibility. A revision might introduce a new encoding mechanism that is more compact (like packed encoding did), but this is unusual, since there is not

Re: [protobuf] serialization size from 2.0.x to 2.3.x, also message design best practices

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote: Note that protobufs only encode structure.  They do not do any compression.  You should apply compression separately on top of your data if you need it.  Note that this will add considerable CPU cost, so you must decide if

Re: [protobuf] serialization size from 2.0.x to 2.3.x, also message design best practices

On Apr 27, 2010, at 15:04 , Kenton Varda wrote: The optimizations mentioned in the changelog are CPU speed or memory usage optimizations, not encoded size optimizations. Totally unrelated, but this reminds me that I think there may still be one optimization possible with Java protocol

Re: [protobuf] serialization size from 2.0.x to 2.3.x, also message design best practices

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:38 PM, sheila miguez she...@pobox.com wrote: I wasn't expecting a good compression ratio for protobuf messages since they are decently packed already, but was happy to see that result. Yep, Protobufs are a compact encoding, but compression can still work well

Re: [protobuf] serialization size from 2.0.x to 2.3.x, also message design best practices

In the case of repeated strings etc (excluding the enum case), I've been toying whether something is possible by associating certain objects / values with unique identifiers on the wire. Potentially this would also allow graph (rather than tree) serialization. This is obviously well into the hazy

Re: [protobuf] serialization size from 2.0.x to 2.3.x, also message design best practices

In the case of repeated strings etc (excluding the enum case), I've been toying whether something is possible by associating certain objects / values with unique identifiers on the wire. Potentially this would also allow graph (rather than tree) serialization. This is obviously well into the