support protobuf3?

[ekg]

As far as I understand, protobuf3 is even simpler to implement, particularly given changes in default value semantics. Have you thought about supporting it?

[tanmaykm]

Yes of course. There was at least one discussion mentioning this here: #46 (comment)

Right now, ver 2 seems sufficient for most cases that I have encountered. I shall probably attempt it when I do any changes to the package next. Please feel free to send in a PR if you need it in the meantime.

[malmaud]

One place where protobuf3 would be useful is for supporting Tensorflow.

[tanmaykm]

I had attempted this some time ago. Should be able to push an update this week.

[tanmaykm]

FWIW, I'm working further on it, but there's basic support for protobuf3 now in this branch: https://github.com/tanmaykm/ProtoBuf.jl/tree/proto3.

[malmaud]

Oh great, thank you so much.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:37 AM Tanmay Mohapatra [email protected]
wrote:

FWIW, I'm working further on it, but there's basic support for protobuf3
now in this branch: https://github.com/tanmaykm/ProtoBuf.jl/tree/proto3.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#55 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA8SvYZXiBjLAh76VrKno_QOPOAs6_Ioks5qYEkhgaJpZM4G2QAD
.

[tanmaykm]

Protobuf3 support should now be available in master via #70.
Do raise issues if something is not working fine.
Will tag a new version soon.