ok that makes sense. thanks! On Oct 22, 4:02 pm, Henner Zeller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 15:01, Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > This may seem like a basic question, but I find having to label > > the .proto file with unique tag numbers for each field a little > > cumbersome, especially if there are a lot of fields. > > > message Person { > > required string name = 1; > > required int32 id = 2; > > optional string email = 3; > > } > > > Can I define a .proto file without the tag numbers, like so? > > > message Person { > > required string name; > > required int32 id; > > optional string email; > > } > > No. > > The reason for this explicit definition is that the protocol buffer is > 'future compatible': fields written with a particular tag will always > be written with that tag. Consider you want to re-structure the fields > in your proto buffer to say (Id, name, email) ... then they would get > a different 'automatic' tag assigned and you wouldn't be able to read > files written with older binaries. If the tags are assigned, then > re-arranging fields in the file does not matter. > > -h > > > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://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.
