You could treat the protobuf classes as private implemnetation helpers.
Your public interface would have methods like you describe, and internally
they'd just copy the object's state into a protocol buffer and then
serialize it.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Paul Runyan paul_run...@hotmail.comwrote:
Hi Kenton -
Thanks for your help. Obviously defining message types in proto files is
crucial for being able to exchange messages between different languages.
However, as a substitute for Java serialisation having to specify message
types in separate files from the source files seems less than ideal.
What I was thinking of was more along the lines of adding methods to each
object to be serialised via PB that look like the methods on the classes the
PB compiler generates --- writeTo() and parseFrom(). These would work
analogously to the way that writeObject() and readObject() for normal
serialisation, but by trading away the unrestricted polymorhism that this
type of application doesn't need it allow it to write ints rather than class
names to distinguish types and would hopefully also gain from the extra
efficiencies of CodedInputStream and CodedOutputStream.
Best regards,
Paul
--
Find car news, reviews and more Looking to change your car this
year?http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F859641_t=762955845_r=tig_OCT07_m=EXT
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
