Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Is there a reason, not to use a different name space for protobuf 3 #507

Closed
vishalsan opened this issue Jun 18, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed

Is there a reason, not to use a different name space for protobuf 3 #507

vishalsan opened this issue Jun 18, 2015 · 1 comment

Comments

@vishalsan
Copy link

If google wants to support both 2 and 3, it would be highly desirable that the namespace ( package declaration has v3 in it) is different. That would allow protobuf 2 and 3 to coexist. I today am not able to run protobuf 3 on platforms that have bootstrap dependencies on protobuf 2 ( hadoop is an example )

https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/r2.6.0/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/dependency-analysis.html
@xfxyjwf
Copy link
Contributor

xfxyjwf commented Jan 20, 2016

They share the same namespace because they share most part of the implementation. It's proto2 with some modifications, rather than a new thing created from scratch.

Regarding the binary compatibility, in future releases, we will try to ensure the code generated by an old protoc can work with newer versions of the proto runtime.

@xfxyjwf xfxyjwf closed this as completed Jan 20, 2016
adellahlou pushed a commit to adellahlou/protobuf that referenced this issue Apr 20, 2023
@dcodeIO
Initial take on runtime services, see protocolbuffers#507
d3ae961
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@vishalsan @xfxyjwf