I had code failing in a unit test because the code under test was
explicitly looking for ExtensionRegistry.
m = returnType.getMethod("parseFrom", Array.newInstance(Byte.TYPE,
0).getClass(), ExtensionRegistry.class);
Hence I was wondering why things changed.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Jason Hsueh <[email protected]> wrote:
> ExtensionRegistry extends ExtensionRegistryLite, and the generated
> parseFrom()/mergeFrom() routines don't need the descriptor-based features
> that are added by ExtensionRegistry. Is this causing problems for you?
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, skay <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm upgrading from 2.0.3 to 2.3, and the compiler now generates the
>> parseFrom java code with ExtensionRegistryLite rather than
>> ExtensionRegistry. Is it expected that using optimize_for on anything
>> other than LITE_RUNTIME should generate that? I've compiled samples
>> using all of the optimize_for options, and all resulted in parseFrom
>> using the lite registry.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Protocol Buffers" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected].
>> 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 [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
>
--
sheila
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
