code_monkey_steve escreveu:
This is my single biggest complaint, and the one reason protobuf is
unsuitable for my project: the message definitions need to include
enough information to dynamically generate the user interface for both
displaying and composing messages.
I am new to this
This topic is very interesting, and I have put a lot of thought in it.
Let's share:
I have noticed that in most of my applications, most of the columns in
the database are just storage for later reports, nothing happens there.
I gess this is what you call persistence.
I was thinking of
Interesting... Google's Chrome is the only browser that dos NOT work
google's stuff ;)
BTW, is there a users' list about Chrome?
Alain
Olivier Gautherot escreveu:
Hi Kenton, thanks for the insight.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com
mailto:ken...@google.com
Hi,
I was reading this comparison yesterday and was woried about PB
performance... But today I studied a little more about JSON and I would
like to share this:
JSON is not at all comparable with ProtBuf, it is much much simpler. It
is just a way of putting variables in a pack.
ProtBuf is a
Is it possible to use protobuf-c in the embedded side and regular
protbuff in the PC side?
This sound like a win-win option, or am I mistaken???
Thanks in advance for feedback,
Alain
Wink Saville escreveu:
In the embedded systems they are both important. I potentially see 100's
of messages
Hi,
One of the big advantages of ProtBuf is the ability to make
comunications Forward *and* backward compatible beween versions.
I would like to study the matter a little more, preferably not directly
related to PB, but in a neutral background (even XML could be).
Can enyone send some
