Re: Serialization of unset fields

2009-02-25 Thread Leon Mergen
Hello Kenton, Thanks for your reply. I actually read that text earlier, but didn't get what you're saying from that text (still don't), probably because it's kind of abstract. My guess is that you're talking about this: "If any of your elements are optional, the encoded message may or may not ha

Re: Serialization of unset fields

2009-02-24 Thread Kenton Varda
You are correct. Optional fields are not sent if they are not set. This is documented here: http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/encoding.html#optional On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Leon Mergen wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 2:57 pm, Leon Mergen wrote: > > After a bit of a search o

Re: Serialization of unset fields

2009-02-24 Thread Leon Mergen
On Feb 24, 2:57 pm, Leon Mergen wrote: > After a bit of a search on the site of protocol buffers I was unable > to see what the behavior of the serialization of unset fields is (that > is, has_field () == false). Will they be skipped entirely from > serialization, and thus take up no space at a