MessagePack for C# (.NET, .NET Core, Unity, Xamarin) VS Protobuf.NET

Given it's a binary serialization framework, it should not be too difficult, because the domain is well-explored and numerous libraries exist in C# which address same goals that Fury does.

More popular/newer examples are https://github.com/Cysharp/MemoryPack (which is similar to Fury with its own spec, C#-code first schema), https://github.com/MessagePack-CSharp/MessagePack-CSharp or even gRPC / Protobuf tooling https://github.com/grpc/grpc-dotnet

With Unity/IL2CPP stuff: For general-purpose serialization libraries like JSON, you sometimes need to provide hints to make sure types are included: https://github.com/jilleJr/Newtonsoft.Json-for-Unity/wiki/Fi...

For schema serialization on known types, there are codegen tools (i.e. moc for MessagePack): https://github.com/neuecc/MessagePack-CSharp

MessagePack is migrating to Rosalyn code generators, so basically invisible codegen. Cysharp's newer serialization library, MessagePack, already uses this: https://github.com/Cysharp/MemoryPack

Thanks, I'm sure I'll need it, though I do have my own platform with serialization set up already that I'm hoping I can port relatively easily (It's backended with MessagePack C# which is a lovely serializer for Unity.)

In the Road map of features #119 for MessagePack-CSharp, they checked the box for:

Try MessagePack for serialization. It will help to reduce the size of the message and the time of serialization.

I mentioned JSON, but there are many formats that are much more efficient. I can mention FlatBuffers, MessagePack and ProtoBuf. These are the ones I've used myself, and personally I'm most comfortable with MessagePack and ProtoBuf. I don't think the performance would be an issue if you had to choose between these three, it's mostly the API that is different.

Biblioteca Nuget para C#

This article requires that reader is familar with core concept of Akka.NET serialization (see https://getakka.net/articles/serialization/serialization.html) and ProtoBuf-Net library (see https://github.com/protobuf-net/protobuf-net).

The model used, a simple invoice which uses protobuf-net 1 NuGet package to store information in a binary file.

Not sure if it works with gRPC but I really like how Protobuf.NET uses attributes like other serializers instead of needing to write a .proto and generate (not-very-C#-friendly) classes from it. Well, until you need to interop with other languages.

I mentioned JSON, but there are many formats that are much more efficient. I can mention FlatBuffers, MessagePack and ProtoBuf. These are the ones I've used myself, and personally I'm most comfortable with MessagePack and ProtoBuf. I don't think the performance would be an issue if you had to choose between these three, it's mostly the API that is different.

The closest way would be using Grpc.Web + Protobuf.net. The overall experience is pretty close to WCF server + Client where you share a common interface and let the client and server just call through those.

Grpc Web with Blazor WASM is a really pleasant experience so far imo for my personal projects at home. You have strongly typed models and methods and you have choice on sharing the contract between client and server if you're using code first instead of proto IDL files (e.g. protobuf-net).

It's pretty straight-forward to follow the protobuf-net docs to serialize the report, but we should really GZIP the stream for sending to reduce bandwidth consumption and improve performance:

There are a number of Protobuf implementations for .NET Core, but I like protobuf-net as it's a nice, clean, Apache 2.0 Licensed implementation. It is also supported by protogen, a great online generator that will output protobuf-net classes ready for use (for its CSharp profile). If you open the latest schema from the link here, you can simply paste into the generator. NOTE: At the time of writing, [(js_preEncoded)=true] isn't supported by the generator, and can be removed from the proto schema.

> Protobuf-java is a little heavy [...] Just depending on the library adds 1.6MB and nearly 700 classes before you even generate your own message classes.

By comparison, protobuf-net [1] is about 260KB and 68 classes. Python's [2] is a 1MB package download (with source).

Why's the Java one so big?

[1] https://github.com/protobuf-net/protobuf-net

[2] https://pypi.org/project/protobuf