3 ms·
In general, I agree. The problem is that serialization (at least with proto3) is “lossy”. As I mentioned elsewhere in the discussion, proto3 messages discard ce
by fuzzy2 4y ago
In general, I agree. The problem is that serialization (at least with proto3) is “lossy”. As I mentioned elsewhere in the discussion, proto3 messages discard certain information in the name of efficiency. The end result (message semantically invalid) does not change, of course, but the “why” could.
- haberman 4y agoYes, proto3 "singular" fields are a big problem. But now that proto3 supports "optional" fields (which remember the difference between unset and explicit 0) you can use true optional fields for all new messages going forward: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#specifying_field_rules https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3#s...