Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

	▲	memling 3 months ago
		> If PB broke backwards-compat once then to me that's a very serious problem -- details? Proto2 and Proto3 differ in how they handle default and required elements. Regarding these differences, I found a few references online: `https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/350443/why-protobuf-3-made-all-fields-on-the-messages-optional https://groups.google.com/g/protobuf/c/Pezwn5UYZss https://www.hackingnote.com/en/versus/proto2-vs-proto3/` I don't use protobuf regularly, and they claim that the wire formats are bidirectionally compatible. When I last evaluated them with another developer years ago, I don't recall this being the case. (It was not merely a difference between their syntaxes.) I'm not sure the semantics are preserved between the two versions, either (e.g., did I provide a default value? was this element optional and missing? etc.). They have lately (this is news to me) moved to protobuf editions: https://protobuf.dev/editions/overview/. This provides some flexibility in the code generation and may require some maintenance on the part of the user to ensure that codec behavior remains consistent. Google, for their part, are trying to minimize these disruptions: > When the subsequent editions are released, default behaviors for features may change. You can have Prototiller do a no-op transformation of your .proto file or you can choose to accept some or all of the new behaviors. Editions are planned to be released roughly once a year.