Any comment on this?
Will you consider this for proto3?
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:50:36 AM UTC-7, Yoav H wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a suggestion fr improving the protobuf encoding.
> Is proto3 final?
>
> I like the simplicity of the encoding of protobuf.
> But I think it has one issue with
Encoding is identical... just the API is different. In proto2, you
have (in C++) FooMessage->has_field() which will tell you whether a
field was present in the encoded version (or has been set prior if
you're building a new message). The Java API has something rather
similar... hasField() I think?
Thanks all,
Do you know where I can find the proto2 encoding guide?
The proto site has only the proto3 encoding described.
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 12:21:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Yoav H >
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I wanted ask regarding
> On Mar 26, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Yoav H 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 tha
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-ca
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)?
Wh