I don't think proto3 will replace proto2. You should use the proper one for your scenario. There is few difference in computational efficiency in this case.
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:35 PM William Cheung <cheung.wa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've just started with protobuf. > > I've noticed that using proto3 means that if you set a parameter with > default values (e.g. bool false) it is no longer serialised. For my > application, sending the default value conveys information, so this is > unacceptable as the deserialiser does not know that the variable was set. I > noticed that proto 2 has a 'optional' keyword which seems to do what I > want. I also found a work around in proto 3 in the link below but it is > really ugly. > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33204321/upgrading-protobuf-from-version-2-to-3-incompatible-with-protobuf-default-valu > > My questions are > > What is the long term support plan for proto 2? Will it be abandoned by > google in the future? > What would be computationally more efficient, using proto 2 or using proto > 3 with the work around? > > Thanks > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Protocol Buffers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
