Marc:
Thanks for your input. I think your comment helps me clarify my query:
Most applications or services that are "producers" will generate data with
N fields in it. Consumers may be interested in only m fields- m could be 5
and N could be 20. For example: An address book service will generate
Oh, the other thing about extensions: it may result in smaller message
sizes. For each optional message (command) you add, you're adding a pointer
to the message. In-memory size is O(number of fields defined) whereas with
extensions it's O(number of fields set). There's some overhead to using
exten
It doesn't matter that much. I only set UNKNOWN = 2 on the assumption that
pop and push were already assigned and you needed to preserve wire
compatibility. If I were starting from scratch I would probably define
UNKNOWN as the first value and set it to 0. Making it the first value
defined makes it
Thanks.
To make this generic and allow for multiple commands to be added in
future, would a good strategy be
to define:
enum Type { POP = 0, PUSH = 1, UNKNOWN = 100 }, and later add TOP,
TAIL, etc. etc. as items after PUSH (meaning with values 2, 3 ... ).
So, later we have: enum Type { POP = 0
No, there isn't any way to remove the dependency. The compiler doesn't try
to detect why you defined an import.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Igor Gatis wrote:
> So, let's say I'm developing a plugin which, say, add or removes builder
> pattern to java generator (this is actually a real use c
Clients with the old binary will not be able to read messages containing the
new enum value. This would get treated as an unknown field, meaning that the
type field would not be sent in an older client. Since your field is also
required, it would fail to parse. So, with this example, you would need
Hi
This is my first attempt at defining a command pattern :
message Command {
required Type type = 1;
optional Value value = 2;
optional Push push = 3;
optional Pop pop = 4;
}
enum Type { POP = 0, PUSH = 1 }
I deploy code using this file.
Later, I want to add a new command, but
I believe that's the way to do it.
I think you can also use the extends, but looks like other language
ports (like the C port) do not all support the extend mechanism.
( yet).
-john
On May 14, 12:45 pm, Vince wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I want to serialize many message in the same pipe,
> do I need one
So, let's say I'm developing a plugin which, say, add or removes builder
pattern to java generator (this is actually a real use case). So I created a
.proto file with my plugin metadata info:
MyPluginMetadata.proto:
import "google/protobuf/descriptor.proto"
extend google.protobuf.MessageOptions
Yes, you can. What is your target language? The accessor names are generated
differently - in C++ you would get lower-cased names. Have you looked at the
generated header? You may also want to see
http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/style.html
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Jacques
Check out the docs:
http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/techniques.html#union
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Vince wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I want to serialize many message in the same pipe,
> do I need one "master" message that includes all the others in
> optional
> and have a kind
Hi,
If I want to serialize many message in the same pipe,
do I need one "master" message that includes all the others in
optional
and have a kind of messageType field in it to know which kind a
message is inside?
Like this,
message A1 {...}
message A2 {...}
message master
{
enum type {...}
req
Firstly, I must note that those benchmarks are specific to protobuf-net (a
specific implementation), not "protocol buffers" (which covers a range of
implementations). Re "is it not more realistic"; well, that depends entirely
on what your use-case *is*. It /sounds/ like you are really talking abou
I saw that ProtoBuf has been benchmarked using the Northwind data
set- a data set of size 130K, with 3000 objects including orders and
order line items.
This is an excellent review:
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-net/wiki/Performance
Is it not more realistic, to have a benchmark with a m
Hi,
Given the .proto file as below:
message NestedObject {
required string field = 1;
}
message OuterObject {
required NestedObject nestedObject = 1;
}
Question: Can one define the nested object within the OuterObject as
required?
If you can use required, what will the getters/set
15 matches
Mail list logo
