On Jun 9, 8:31 pm, Kenton Varda wrote:
> > Is the plan that the reflection parts of the API will just throw
> > exceptions, or will there be non-reflection interfaces which are
> > implemented by these generated classes?
>
> There will be a new interface called MessageLite which is a superclass o
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Jon Skeet wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 1:42 am, Kenton Varda wrote:
> > In the next version there will be a third option: LITE_RUNTIME. This
> > variant is like optimizing for speed but will generate code that only
> > depends on a lighter version of the protobuf runti
On Jun 9, 1:42 am, Kenton Varda wrote:
> In the next version there will be a third option: LITE_RUNTIME. This
> variant is like optimizing for speed but will generate code that only
> depends on a lighter version of the protobuf runtime library that does not
> include descriptors or reflection.
Actually, optimize_for = SPEED is now the default (as of 2.1.0). (If there
is still documentation somewhere saying otherwise, point me at it so I can
fix it.)
The other option is optimize_for = CODE_SIZE. Protocol buffer generated
code can be surprisingly large -- we've seen binaries at google th
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:03 PM, wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Can anyone tell me what are the caveats of using the option
> optimize_for = SPEED; during code generation?
> The documentation says it can improve parsing and serialization. But
> what are the cons of using this?
Mostly it generates more code
Hi,
Can anyone tell me what are the caveats of using the option
optimize_for = SPEED; during code generation?
The documentation says it can improve parsing and serialization. But
what are the cons of using this?
Thanks,
Wayne
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
