Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Take a look at ListDecorator.Write; basically, there's a call to SetPackedField
and a sub-item token. Or I can come up with a standalone example if you prefer?
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 15 Jan 2013 at 7:56
Marc,
Thanks for quick reply. I really admire your skills.
ListDecorator.Write is where i found the code. But it does not seem to work
with writeDouble(). Maybe i'm doing something wrong. If not to hard, could you
send me a working sample?
Thanks in Advance
Paul Kotlyar
Original comment by unclepau...@gmail.com
on 15 Jan 2013 at 8:02
Ok; it'll have to wait until tomorrow, though: I'm not at a PC right now
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 15 Jan 2013 at 8:14
using ProtoBuf;
using System;
using System.IO;
[ProtoContract]
class Foo
{
[ProtoMember(1, IsPacked = true)]
public double[] Data { get; set; }
static void Main()
{
var arr = new double[] {123.45, 678.90};
// first figure out what we're aiming for
var obj = new Foo { Data = arr };
using (var ms = new MemoryStream())
{
Serializer.Serialize(ms, obj);
Console.WriteLine(BitConverter.ToString(ms.GetBuffer(),0,(int)ms.Length));
}
// now try to do it manually
using (var ms = new MemoryStream())
{
using (var writer = new ProtoWriter(ms, null, null))
{
ProtoWriter.WriteFieldHeader(1, WireType.String, writer);
var tok = ProtoWriter.StartSubItem(null, writer);
foreach (var val in arr)
{
ProtoWriter.SetPackedField(1, writer);
// the next two lines are what we would do anyway if it wasn't "packed"
ProtoWriter.WriteFieldHeader(1, WireType.Fixed64, writer);
ProtoWriter.WriteDouble(val, writer);
}
ProtoWriter.EndSubItem(tok, writer);
}
Console.WriteLine(BitConverter.ToString(ms.GetBuffer(), 0, (int)ms.Length));
}
}
}
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 16 Jan 2013 at 9:38
Works like a charm! Thanks Marc.I don't know if you hear this enough, but the
community really appreciates your efforts.
Thanks
Paul
Original comment by unclepau...@gmail.com
on 16 Jan 2013 at 1:57
Just in case you're wondering about the slightly odd repetition: this allows an
awful lot of downstream code to remain the same, with only the array/list code
having to know about "packed", rather than the value-based code (which could be
several levels of decorator away).
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:08
Original comment by marc.gravell
on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:08
I have no complaints about the api. I care about serialization performance, and
it is outstanding.
Thanks Again
Original comment by unclepau...@gmail.com
on 16 Jan 2013 at 2:20
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
unclepau...@gmail.com
on 15 Jan 2013 at 5:13