Yes, groups are never going to fully go away. But we recommend against
using them in new code.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Piotr Findeisen
piotr.findei...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi!
On Jun 24, 8:42 pm, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
The end-tag approach is more efficient than your
Hi there,
I'm developing an app in C++ and I use PB for lots of things. I'm also
in an environment that requires me to make sure the code passes very
strict warning levels. I found out when I started using them that PB
didn't include the _unknown_fields_ or any of the repeated field
containers
BTW, this was also reported awhile ago as issue 86:
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=86
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
The problem is that GCC emits two or three copies of each constructor. In
order to keep generated code size down,
That one doesn't look complete. I've got one that almost is.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Marc Gravell marc.grav...@gmail.comwrote:
I haven't tried it, but
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/OtherLanguages
lists javascript support here: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-js/
(this
One problem with javascript and protobuf is that you need a lot of support
code to parse the messages. Unless you end up sending quite a lot of stuff
back and forth, making the user download a JS protobuf codec library may be
a net loss. It may be better to use JSON or XML because browsers
