Comments (13)
Short version - yes, I've thought about that too. I can probably get something
working committed tomorrow - that do? Re the readonly collection - are you
thinking
in terms of popsicle immutability? I need to put the data *somewhere* while it
is
deserializing the items...
Long version:
This is actually something I've put a lot of thought into already, and I think
it can
be done pretty trivially - and it would certainly work OK for messages
serialized
with protobuf-net; however, for all that google got right, there is one problem
with
the protocol buffers format - it doesn't guarantee when a message has ended
(you can
receive multiple fields for the same child entity, completely independently;
protobuf-net never *sends* this, but it is a valid construct).
Given that protobuf-net doesn't create messages in this way, I'm actually
inclined to
use the simplest solution possible - the caveat is that it is possible that
your
OnDeserialized method might get called multiple times - but only if (for
example) you
are processing a byte stream specially constructed from a java/C++ client. Do
you
think that would be agreeable? The alternative is that I would need to do a lot
of
object tracking, and run a fix-up step at the end of the process, which I
really
don't want to do. Again - it wouldn't apply for data serialized by protobuf-net.
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 15 Feb 2009 at 11:36
- Added labels: Type-Enhancement
- Removed labels: Type-Defect
from protobuf-net.
Thank you very much for your quick reply!
Regarding ReadOnlyCollections: Yes, I want to have the collections immutable;
they
are part of a calculated result set, and modifying them afterwards could make
the
result inconsistent. So I have private List<T> instances that are marked as
DataMember, and public ReadOnlyCollections without a setter.
My long version: You are right, this is really a decision if protobuf-net
should be a
special-purpose, more efficient WCF formatter just "inspired" by Google's
specification; or if it should focus on allowing .NET developers to handle
protocol
buffers in a similar and wire-compatible way as with Google's implementation for
C++/Java/Python.
In the meantime I did more comparisons with real-world data, doing
serializing/deserializing roundtrips in memory. Turns out that the size
advantage
over DataContractSerializer (XML) is pretty much evened out when applying GZIP
compression to both and explicitly declaring "short" names in the [DataMember]
attribute constructors; it's still about 30% faster as long as only public
members
are marked as DataMembers, however as soon as I use private fields for
serializing,
protobuf-net becomes more than 50% slower. I guess in this case reflection is
used to
get/set the fields, and the DataContractSerializer somehow can avoid this.
So I'm not sure if WCF-compatible serializing is really the best use case for
protobuf, so maybe you should focus more on making protobuf-net behave in a way
a
C++/java/python user of protocol buffers would expect it to work.
What do you think?
Original comment by [email protected]
on 16 Feb 2009 at 7:56
from protobuf-net.
My main aim is simply to provide a useful tool that lets people shift data
around
conveniently ;-p In particular, I'm trying to retain the cross-platform options
(so
it can work on Silverlight, CF, etc, where binary serialization is weak).
It turns out that the [OnBlahAttribute] classes (nor IDeserializationCallback)
don't
exist on CF/Silverlight/etc, so I'm tempted to go for a bespoke interface (it
is a
cleaner model to implement).
Re the performance of fields - I could probably optimize that quite easily;
I'll see
what I can do...
Marc
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 16 Feb 2009 at 8:06
from protobuf-net.
For info, I've just done a commit with much improved field access; I haven't
released
the binaries, but it is in the source. That should fix the performance
degredation
with fields.
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 16 Feb 2009 at 9:16
from protobuf-net.
Cool, have I accidentally ordered 24/7 platinum support? :-) Thank you very
much!
Next time I can test is this evening, I will then let you know about the latest
numbers.
Original comment by [email protected]
on 16 Feb 2009 at 11:03
from protobuf-net.
Unless you say otherwise, I'll assume you're happy to compile from source; I'd
rather
get around to implementing the logic behind the callbacks before releasing the
dlls,
but can do if you need (it is all handled by a build script, so there's no cost
to
releasing).
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 16 Feb 2009 at 11:16
- Changed state: Accepted
from protobuf-net.
Of course, that's fine, I have checked out the source from SVN anyway, it's
just that
I'm having a different day-project at the moment ;)
Original comment by [email protected]
on 16 Feb 2009 at 12:25
from protobuf-net.
ISerializerCallback
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 16 Feb 2009 at 4:02
- Changed state: Fixed
from protobuf-net.
So, I finally ran my tests against revision 233, and it leaves
DataContractSerializer
in the dust again :)
Regarding ISerializerCallback I have two thoughts:
* I'm not really happy with having to implement always all four methods, when I
need just one or two of them. Probably compiler optimization will remove the
empty
method calls, however it "smells"...
* Methods must be public. I know, I can use explicit interface implementation to
hide it from users of my API (at least in IntelliSense), but same story here.
I would really prefer attributes over an interface for this, and I think it
would
also fit better into the overall design. But that's just my 2 cents.
Thank you very much again!
Original comment by [email protected]
on 16 Feb 2009 at 10:20
from protobuf-net.
Interesting input. I'm glad the performance picked up ;-p
Re the attributes... maybe I was worrying unduly... my concern was the
confusion if
multiple methods were attributed, but I've checked with DataContractSerializer
and it
doesn't let you do this anyway...
I'll take another look... the good thing is that it is fairly simple to swap
the
implementation details here.
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 17 Feb 2009 at 5:47
- Changed state: Started
from protobuf-net.
Fixed (now using attributes; interface removed). It supports both the standard
2.0
attributes, and some proto-specific ones (so that it can be used on
CF/Silverlight).
Allows either "void Foo()" or "void Foo(StreamingContext)" signatures. No
duplicates.
Callbacks only supported on the contract-root of any hierarchy (virtual is
fine).
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 17 Feb 2009 at 9:44
- Changed state: Fixed
from protobuf-net.
Big thanks! No negative impact on performance, got rid of all my getter/setter
code,
and now my data model has no dependency on protobuf anymore and no extra code
with
still full functionality. Exactly as I wanted it. Thanks again for your great
support!
Original comment by [email protected]
on 18 Feb 2009 at 6:45
from protobuf-net.
No problem
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 18 Feb 2009 at 8:06
- Changed state: Verified
from protobuf-net.
Related Issues (20)
- Suffix missing for required non-primitive properties HOT 2
- global:: prefix forgot when generate field and property
- Concurrent dictionarys and linked lists goes null on serializing/deserializing.
- Calling GetSchema can cause call to serialize to throw an exception
- Method to detect built-in types
- Await/async proposal HOT 9
- Invalid proto data with TimeSpan via GetSchema() HOT 1
- Please add Windows Phone 8.1 to PCL version HOT 1
- protobuf-net.2.0.0.668\lib\net40\protobuf-net.dll should target v4.0.30319, not v2.0.50727
- Custom serializer works in debug - not in release HOT 5
- Won't build to Windows Phone 8
- Exception due to code in default constructor HOT 3
- I think with 100 runs of same code on same data I can see all exception of protobuf-net !! HOT 5
- Need Help Getting Started HOT 2
- Protobuf.net 'IsDefined' logical bug?
- Deserializing Dictionary<string, List<T>> leads to An element with the same key already exists in the dictionary.
- sub-classes serialization
- Precompiler failed to process asm which targets .NET Framework 3.5
- Value null exception
- Protobuf error System.Xml.Writer wrong assembly
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from protobuf-net.