On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Yoav H wrote:
> I saw the start\end group but I couldn't find any information on those and
> how to use them.
>
> Your point about skipping fields makes sense.
> I think it is also solvable with applying the same idea of chunked
> encoding, even on sub fields.
> S
Hi Yoav,
Chunked encoding is definitely an interesting idea, and I can see the
benefits you mentioned. However proto2 and proto3 are more or less frozen
from a wire perspective. There are lots of existing clients out there
already communicating with proto3, so we're not really at liberty to mak
I saw the start\end group but I couldn't find any information on those and
how to use them.
Your point about skipping fields makes sense.
I think it is also solvable with applying the same idea of chunked
encoding, even on sub fields.
So instead of writing the full length of the child field, you
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:06 AM, 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers <
protobuf@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Yoav H wrote:
>
>> They say on their website: "When evaluating new features, we look for
>> additions that are very widely useful or very simple".
>> What
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Yoav H wrote:
> They say on their website: "When evaluating new features, we look for
> additions that are very widely useful or very simple".
> What I'm suggesting here is both very useful (speeding up serialization
> and eliminating memory duplication) and very
They say on their website: "When evaluating new features, we look for
additions that are very widely useful or very simple".
What I'm suggesting here is both very useful (speeding up serialization and
eliminating memory duplication) and very simple (simple additions to the
encoding, no need to c
This exact suggestion has been up for discussion long time ago(years?,
before proto2?)
When it comes to taking suggestions I'm only a 3rd party implementer but my
understanding is that the design process of protocol buffers and its goals
are internal to Google and they usually publish new versions
Any comment on this?
Will you consider this for proto3?
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:50:36 AM UTC-7, Yoav H wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a suggestion fr improving the protobuf encoding.
> Is proto3 final?
>
> I like the simplicity of the encoding of protobuf.
> But I think it has one issue with
