I personally don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, since it's fairly easy to make your protocol buffers backward and forward compatible, I'd say it's probably better to expose protocol buffer classes than standard C++ classes or structs.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Christoph Heindl < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > what are the reasons (if any) to recommend against exporting generated > proto classes from shared libraries, others than recompilation of > depending programs due to ABI changes? > > From a (lazy) developer's perspective I think makes sense to use the > proto classes as property holders in a public API. > > One more question: is it possible to specify the include directive for > the generated '.pb.cc' file? Currently, it searches for the '.pb.h' > file in the current directory, which is problematic if header and > source files go into different directories. Additionally, one need to > disable some 'dll interface' warnings on MSVC when exporting protobuf > classes from shared libraries. Is that possible? > > Best regards, > Christoph > > -- > 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. > > -- /t http://radio.swirly.com - art music radio 24/7 366/1000 -- 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.
