On 21 jul, 00:22, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
IMO you should just include a tag field which contains some unique
identifier, as described in the docs you cite.
So I just shouldn't have used your extensions mechanism but rather
added to each message a unique id? Adding it now seems
Is there a way to add security layer to protocol buffer if I'm writing
my proto objects to https output stream? In java we have sealed
objects and we can have signature attached to it to make sure objects
are not tampered on the receiving end. Is there something similar in
protocol buffer as well?
I generally create web services using WCF or ASP.NET MVC. I don't get
the point of Protocol Buffers. Am I missing something?
Out of the box, WCF web services and ASP.NET MVC actions serialise my
objects to JSON or XML, using the serialisation libraries provided by
the framework. I don't need to
1. What happens when you need to read/write your messages in Java? You'd
either need to rewrite all your classes or work with ugly generic JSON or
XML parse trees.
2. Protobuf encoding and decoding is much, much faster than JSON or XML,
and the encoded messages are much smaller, particularly
You could simply sign the chunk of data manually; but no - protobuf does not
include any provision for this. I *imagine* because the requirements will be
so different system-to-system.
On 21 July 2010 11:32, Prakash Rao prakashrao1...@gmail.com wrote:
curity layer to protocol buffer if I'm
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 03:32, Prakash Rao prakashrao1...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a way to add security layer to protocol buffer if I'm writing
my proto objects to https output stream? In java we have sealed
objects and we can have signature attached to it to make sure objects
are not
2010/7/21 Julian González julian@gmail.com:
Does protocol buffers support an scalar type of one byte or two byte
length? lets say an int16, int8?
No. But note that integers are 'varint' encoded, so if you only give a
small value, it will only eat up a small amount of bits.
So a number in
I was wondering if there was a correct way of building a set
containing multiple files with dependency(ies). Looking at the old
archives, I know Kenton has mentioned the next set of protoc (when?)
will output FileDescriptorSet in topological order, but would any
other order work equally the same?
Ordering is important because any dependencies need to be built before they
are used - if you give an arbitrary order there may be errors complaining
about undefined symbols or imports not being found. A depth first ordering
will work, and that's exactly what protoc does when producing
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
1. What happens when you need to read/write your messages in Java? You'd
either need to rewrite all your classes or work with ugly generic JSON or
XML parse trees.
2. Protobuf encoding and decoding is much, much faster
Protobuf allows you to build your conceptual protocol the way you want it.
If you want security features on top of it, you can either add it to
your messages, or you can use a secure network layer that does the
work for you. Its your call.
Personally, I'm against reinventing the wheel, so I use
11 matches
Mail list logo
