i think it would also be very helpful to have some sort of "dummy- example-plugin" documentation.
at the moment i am completely lost how to begin to write the plugin. but i dont want to whine: protobufs other documentation is excellent, so maybe i am just getting too comfortable ;) On Jan 6, 7:01 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote: > Yes. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to write up formal documentation yet. > See these two files: > > http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/source/browse/trunk/src/google/prot...http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/source/browse/trunk/src/google/prot... > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Chris <hsifdr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is the plugin framework already part of 2.3.0? I can't find any > > documentation for this new feature besides some early brainstorming > > posts. > > > On Dec 22 2009, 7:28 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote: > > > The plugin framework is not meant for this. Plugins can only insert code > > at > > > points that have explicitly been declared by the original generator. For > > > example, in Java, the code generator generates one insertion point in > > each > > > class. So, you can add new methods to a message type, but you cannot > > stick > > > javadoc comments on the existing methods. > > > > I think that a system which let you arbitrarily edit the generated code > > > would be too fragile -- any change to the code generator would > > potentially > > > break plugins. In fact, I'm even worried that the current system is > > risky > > > because it allows plugins to get access to private members which could > > > change, but I don't see any way around that. > > > > All this said, I think it would be great if the protocol compiler > > supported > > > some format for documentation comments and automatically copied those > > > comments into the generated code. But no one has actually worked on this > > > yet. > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Christopher Piggott <cpigg...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Hmm maybe I can use the "UninterpretedOption" message to do this. > > > > Would something like this work? > > > > > message ChrisMessage { > > > > option javadoc = "This is an object representing Chris's Message"; > > > > repeated int32 field1 = 1 [javadoc="This is a javadoc for field 1]; > > > > repeated int32 field2 = 2 [javadoc="This is a javadoc for field 2]; > > > > } > > > > > Then write a plug-in that finds those and writes the ones whose > > > > NamePart.equals("javadoc") in as a /** comment */ > > > > > Possible? > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > "Protocol Buffers" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > <protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Protocol Buffers" group. > > To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
