On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:32:03 AM UTC-7, Feng Xiao wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Teddy Zhang <losti...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> I'm really not happy to see that proto3 removed the ability in generate
>> code for check whether a field exits or not.
>>
>> For a message like this:
>> message Test1 {
>> required int32 a = 1;
>> }
>> If field a is present, the encoded message will have field with id 1 and
>> its value. If the field is not set, the encoded message will not have field
>> id 1.
>> In proto2 generated code, it provides a has method to check whether the
>> field exists or not.
>> In proto3, this is no such thing. During deserialization, if the field is
>> not exists, default value is set. So you can't tell whether the field does
>> not exist or have a default value. That doesn't match the underline
>> encoding anymore.
>>
>> This is a breaking change and will portentially impact a lot of people.
>> Basically we're losing nullable support.
>> For our project, we heavily depends on that. There are workarounds (add
>> a Boolean field) but it is ugly. I think that will stop us from moving from
>> proto2 to proto3 (may need find alternatives).
>>
> There are two workarounds to get back the field presence info in proto3.
> 1. Use a wrapper message, such as google.protobuf.Int32Value
> <https://github.com/google/protobuf/blob/master/src/google/protobuf/wrappers.proto#L84>.
>
> In proto3, message fields still have has-bits.
>
Wrapper field consumes more space. Also, the wire format is not compatible
when move from proto2 to proto3 (given the schema needs to change).
> 2. Use an oneof. For example:
> message Test1 {
> oneof a_oneof {
> int32 a = 1;
> }
> }
> then you can check test.getAOneofCase().
>
Same issue as above.
>
>> Can we add the functionality back?
>>
> It's very unlikely to happen as proto3 features are already finalized and
> implemented in many languages.
>
Is it possible to add a option on message to control this?
I know proto3 is probably in last beta and try to avoid big changes.
However, remove support for this creates a lot of pain in a big
system which already leverage this feature, and may move many people away.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 11:47:08 AM UTC-7, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>
>>> Use proto2, which has the has_* checks per field. (Using get_* you
>>> still get the default value, of course.) It's extremely unfortunate
>>> that this functionality was removed in proto3, I see that making
>>> proto3 unattractive for all but the simplest uses of protos. I know in
>>> almost every protobuf use-case I've had, the presence accessors were
>>> imperative to proper operation.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Yoav H <joe.dai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I wanted ask regarding the decision to populate fields with default
>>> values,
>>> > even if they do not appear in the encoded message.
>>> > If I want to send a "patch" message, where I want to update just the
>>> > provided fields, how can I do that with protobuf (without adding
>>> IsXXXSet
>>> > for every field)?
>>> >
>>> > Why not add another type, representing a default value?
>>> > So the schematics would be, if the field is missing, it is null, and
>>> if the
>>> > field exists, but with this "missing value" type, it will get the
>>> default
>>> > value?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Yoav.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> > "Protocol Buffers" group.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an
>>> > email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Protocol Buffers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com
>> <javascript:>.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
