TextFormat is used extensively within Google, often for exactly the purpose you describe. It should work well, though I'd recommend keeping the files in UTF8 to avoid localisation issues.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Dan <drtet...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there. > > I'm wondering what the state of TextFormat support is in protocol > buffers and if it is and will remain a fully supported option. > > Among other things, I'm thinking of using it as a way of storing > configuration/state for objects in a message based system in an easy > to read format that can also be serialised efficiently to binary when > needed. Does this seem like a reasonable use for PB or could there be > problems with this approach? Would there be any issues with > localisation for string fields by doing this? > > Thanks for the advice. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Protocol Buffers" group. > To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
