On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Petar Petrov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Alek Storm wrote:
>
>> Okay, then we just need to cache the size only during serialization. The
>> children's sizes are calculated and stored, then added to the parent's
>> size. Write the parent size, then w
I can only comment on protobuf-net. It is now pretty stable and
robust, and covers all common .NET variants (I haven't tried compiling
it on micro-framework, but that is about it...). I could probably do
to iron out a few kinks in the code-generator (protogen), but the core
engine is pretty solid.
On Dec 17, 10:59 pm, michael-l...@gmx.net wrote:
> I know of the different protobuf implementations for .NET. How is the
> state of these projects ? I would actually tend to Jon Skeets
> implementation because he's an official project member and Google
> employee. Is there some V1 to be expected i
Size-wise, the only difference between your "Lite" structure and the current
protobuf classes is that it wouldn't have a virtual table pointer or a
cached byte size. Do these really make that much difference?
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Shaun Cox wrote:
>
> As stated by previous posts (the
Well, I've been working out how a RPC impl will look in C, and I
decided that rather than use some inappropriate (TCP) or unreliable
(UDP) transport, I would go with the new kid, SCTP.
SCTP is a reliable datagram protocol that layers over IPv4 or IPV6,
and is at the same level as TCP or UDP. Ther
Well, I've been working out how a RPC impl will look in C, and I
decided that rather than use some inappropriate (TCP) or unreliable
(UDP) transport, I would go with the new kid, SCTP.
SCTP is a reliable datagram protocol that layers over IPv4 or IPV6,
and is at the same level as TCP or UDP. Ther
