Ben - Could you show some examples on using FieldOptions for this kind of
validation? How would you map the actual field name to its validation rules?
On Thursday, June 2, 2011 10:31:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Wright wrote:
You can use custom field options to support validation of this type.
Take a look at extending com.google.FieldOptions
You can create an option field like max_inclusive and then access it
at run-time from the FieldDescriptor and use the information for
validation.
Unfortunately this is still just a suggestion - you will still have
to validate with custom-written code.
PS: I have done this before and it worked out pretty well because the
validation code did not have to have special information about the
data structure, just access to the FieldDescriptor at run time.
On May 30, 6:54 am, Marco Tedone marco.ted...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm checking the protobuf language definition and I couldn't find
anywhere support for numeric range. In XSD, for instance, one could
have:
simpleType name=ZeroToTen
restriction base=int
minInclusive value=0 /
maxInclusive value=10 /
/restriction
/simpleType
However I couldn't find equivalent translation in the proto language
definition. I could find defaults and enums, but not number ranges.
Regards,
Marco
--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
