Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/3] protobuf: minimal implementation for compact in-memory structures

David Barr [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

How does this relate to http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ which has a
very similar name?  If we do not intend to have any interoperability with
it, we should avoid such a confusing name, I think.

The relationship is that the design is shamelessly copied.

... and this will be API and bytestream compatible with that other
protobuf?

If not, please don't use that name. It confuses people, and if somebody
wants to take libified part of our codebase into their application and
link with the real protobuf, it will get even more confusing ;-).

You can (and should) still state that the design was inspired by the other
work in the comment at the beginning of the file or something.

Thanks.