protobuf fixed size data for a network packet
I want to encode a network packet into a protobuf message (bytes) but I would like to get a message that its size is exactly the same as original packet in the receiver side. It looks like protobuf optimizes the size of message. Is that possible?
To make it more clear, how can I make sure what I store in bytes will be remained exactly the same as what I see in the original packet.
protocol-buffers
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:18
Adib RastegarniaAdib Rastegarnia
4216
add a comment |
I want to encode a network packet into a protobuf message (bytes) but I would like to get a message that its size is exactly the same as original packet in the receiver side. It looks like protobuf optimizes the size of message. Is that possible?
To make it more clear, how can I make sure what I store in bytes will be remained exactly the same as what I see in the original packet.
protocol-buffers
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:18
Adib RastegarniaAdib Rastegarnia
4216
add a comment |
I want to encode a network packet into a protobuf message (bytes) but I would like to get a message that its size is exactly the same as original packet in the receiver side. It looks like protobuf optimizes the size of message. Is that possible?
To make it more clear, how can I make sure what I store in bytes will be remained exactly the same as what I see in the original packet.
protocol-buffers
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:18
Adib RastegarniaAdib Rastegarnia
4216
I want to encode a network packet into a protobuf message (bytes) but I would like to get a message that its size is exactly the same as original packet in the receiver side. It looks like protobuf optimizes the size of message. Is that possible?
To make it more clear, how can I make sure what I store in bytes will be remained exactly the same as what I see in the original packet.
protocol-buffers
protocol-buffers
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:18
Adib RastegarniaAdib Rastegarnia
4216
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:18
Adib RastegarniaAdib Rastegarnia
4216
edited Nov 19 '18 at 16:40
Adib Rastegarnia
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:18
Adib RastegarniaAdib Rastegarnia
4216
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:18
Adib RastegarniaAdib Rastegarnia
4216
asked Nov 19 '18 at 16:18
Adib RastegarniaAdib Rastegarnia
4216
4216
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
That is not the intended scenario of protobuf, and it won't help you do that. There maybe another tool suited for this purpose, but in my experience it is more typical to write packet-focused layers by hand.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 7:23
Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell
781k19421372543
Thanks for your response. Actually, I was wrong. I thought that it is gonna change the packet size but it does not. It is just matter of mapping a protobuf message to a well known network packet data structure.
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 1:16
@AdibRastegarnia and again: that isn't what protobuf is designed for; you can't say "this field is bytes 3-6, big-endian", etc. I think you're looking for a different tool, and that you are mistakenly trying to apply protobuf to a different target scenario
– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 21 '18 at 10:00
What I wanna do is to encode a java class with some fields (not all of its fields) into a protobuf message to make it programming language independent and it is possible. One of the fields in that java class is an array of bytes so I defined a variable with type bytes and it works. Is something wrong with this scenario?
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 15:41
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53378755%2fprotobuf-fixed-size-data-for-a-network-packet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
That is not the intended scenario of protobuf, and it won't help you do that. There maybe another tool suited for this purpose, but in my experience it is more typical to write packet-focused layers by hand.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 7:23
Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell
781k19421372543
Thanks for your response. Actually, I was wrong. I thought that it is gonna change the packet size but it does not. It is just matter of mapping a protobuf message to a well known network packet data structure.
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 1:16
@AdibRastegarnia and again: that isn't what protobuf is designed for; you can't say "this field is bytes 3-6, big-endian", etc. I think you're looking for a different tool, and that you are mistakenly trying to apply protobuf to a different target scenario
– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 21 '18 at 10:00
What I wanna do is to encode a java class with some fields (not all of its fields) into a protobuf message to make it programming language independent and it is possible. One of the fields in that java class is an array of bytes so I defined a variable with type bytes and it works. Is something wrong with this scenario?
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 15:41
add a comment |
That is not the intended scenario of protobuf, and it won't help you do that. There maybe another tool suited for this purpose, but in my experience it is more typical to write packet-focused layers by hand.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 7:23
Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell
781k19421372543
Thanks for your response. Actually, I was wrong. I thought that it is gonna change the packet size but it does not. It is just matter of mapping a protobuf message to a well known network packet data structure.
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 1:16
@AdibRastegarnia and again: that isn't what protobuf is designed for; you can't say "this field is bytes 3-6, big-endian", etc. I think you're looking for a different tool, and that you are mistakenly trying to apply protobuf to a different target scenario
– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 21 '18 at 10:00
What I wanna do is to encode a java class with some fields (not all of its fields) into a protobuf message to make it programming language independent and it is possible. One of the fields in that java class is an array of bytes so I defined a variable with type bytes and it works. Is something wrong with this scenario?
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 15:41
add a comment |
That is not the intended scenario of protobuf, and it won't help you do that. There maybe another tool suited for this purpose, but in my experience it is more typical to write packet-focused layers by hand.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 7:23
Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell
781k19421372543
That is not the intended scenario of protobuf, and it won't help you do that. There maybe another tool suited for this purpose, but in my experience it is more typical to write packet-focused layers by hand.
answered Nov 20 '18 at 7:23
Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell
781k19421372543
answered Nov 20 '18 at 7:23
Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell
781k19421372543
answered Nov 20 '18 at 7:23
Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell
781k19421372543
answered Nov 20 '18 at 7:23
Marc Gravell♦Marc Gravell
781k19421372543
781k19421372543
Thanks for your response. Actually, I was wrong. I thought that it is gonna change the packet size but it does not. It is just matter of mapping a protobuf message to a well known network packet data structure.
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 1:16
@AdibRastegarnia and again: that isn't what protobuf is designed for; you can't say "this field is bytes 3-6, big-endian", etc. I think you're looking for a different tool, and that you are mistakenly trying to apply protobuf to a different target scenario
– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 21 '18 at 10:00
What I wanna do is to encode a java class with some fields (not all of its fields) into a protobuf message to make it programming language independent and it is possible. One of the fields in that java class is an array of bytes so I defined a variable with type bytes and it works. Is something wrong with this scenario?
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 15:41
add a comment |
Thanks for your response. Actually, I was wrong. I thought that it is gonna change the packet size but it does not. It is just matter of mapping a protobuf message to a well known network packet data structure.
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 1:16
@AdibRastegarnia and again: that isn't what protobuf is designed for; you can't say "this field is bytes 3-6, big-endian", etc. I think you're looking for a different tool, and that you are mistakenly trying to apply protobuf to a different target scenario
– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 21 '18 at 10:00
What I wanna do is to encode a java class with some fields (not all of its fields) into a protobuf message to make it programming language independent and it is possible. One of the fields in that java class is an array of bytes so I defined a variable with type bytes and it works. Is something wrong with this scenario?
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 15:41
Thanks for your response. Actually, I was wrong. I thought that it is gonna change the packet size but it does not. It is just matter of mapping a protobuf message to a well known network packet data structure.
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 1:16
Thanks for your response. Actually, I was wrong. I thought that it is gonna change the packet size but it does not. It is just matter of mapping a protobuf message to a well known network packet data structure.
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 1:16
@AdibRastegarnia and again: that isn't what protobuf is designed for; you can't say "this field is bytes 3-6, big-endian", etc. I think you're looking for a different tool, and that you are mistakenly trying to apply protobuf to a different target scenario
– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 21 '18 at 10:00
@AdibRastegarnia and again: that isn't what protobuf is designed for; you can't say "this field is bytes 3-6, big-endian", etc. I think you're looking for a different tool, and that you are mistakenly trying to apply protobuf to a different target scenario
– Marc Gravell♦
Nov 21 '18 at 10:00
What I wanna do is to encode a java class with some fields (not all of its fields) into a protobuf message to make it programming language independent and it is possible. One of the fields in that java class is an array of bytes so I defined a variable with type bytes and it works. Is something wrong with this scenario?
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 15:41
What I wanna do is to encode a java class with some fields (not all of its fields) into a protobuf message to make it programming language independent and it is possible. One of the fields in that java class is an array of bytes so I defined a variable with type bytes and it works. Is something wrong with this scenario?
– Adib Rastegarnia
Nov 21 '18 at 15:41
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53378755%2fprotobuf-fixed-size-data-for-a-network-packet%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
