Re: [protobuf] Feature proposal: mapped fields

2010-10-07 Thread Igor Gatis
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Jason Hsueh wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Igor Gatis wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Jason Hsueh wrote: >> >>> Indeed, maps have been brought up repeatedly. I forget the current state >>> of the discussion, but I think it's gener

Re: [protobuf] Feature proposal: mapped fields

2010-10-07 Thread Jason Hsueh
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Igor Gatis wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Jason Hsueh wrote: > >> Indeed, maps have been brought up repeatedly. I forget the current state >> of the discussion, but I think it's generally agreed that it would be a good >> thing to add; it's just a ma

Re: [protobuf] Feature proposal: mapped fields

2010-10-07 Thread Igor Gatis
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Jason Hsueh wrote: > Indeed, maps have been brought up repeatedly. I forget the current state of > the discussion, but I think it's generally agreed that it would be a good > thing to add; it's just a matter of how to implement it (and finding the > time to do it).

Re: [protobuf] Re: Best Practices

2010-10-07 Thread Jason Hsueh
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:29 AM, users wrote: > Thank you Kenton and Jason for the advice. I have a couple more > questions as I move forward with PB implementations. > > In the documentation it states that PBs don't make good first class > citizens in an OO domain model and the suggestion i

Re: [protobuf] Feature proposal: mapped fields

2010-10-07 Thread Jason Hsueh
Indeed, maps have been brought up repeatedly. I forget the current state of the discussion, but I think it's generally agreed that it would be a good thing to add; it's just a matter of how to implement it (and finding the time to do it). A couple of the major issues: - backward compatibility with

Re: [protobuf] Python installation does not build plugin_pb2

2010-10-07 Thread Jason Hsueh
As Kenton said, including plugin.proto would bloat the core library. Only people implementing proto compilers such as yourself need to use it. On the C++ side, you would typically just build a statically linked binary that has all of the plugin generated code linked in. It's not included in the C+

Re: [protobuf] Regarding various concepts in google protocol buffers.

2010-10-07 Thread Jason Hsueh
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Raghav wrote: > Hi I am new to learning google protocol buffers. I have following > questions on my mind when I went throught all te content availiable on > website. > > 1. What should I know for learning google protocol buffers. I mean is > there any pre requisit

Re: [protobuf] Re: "This type does not have extensions"

2010-10-07 Thread Jesper Eskilson
2010/10/6 Kenton Varda : > This exception shouldn't be possible. > If you can produce a small, self-contained program that demonstrates the > problem, I could debug it.  Please make sure that the program is small (no > more than one .proto file and one source file) and runs quickly.  Probably > the

[protobuf] Re: Best Practices

2010-10-07 Thread users ....
Thank you Kenton and Jason for the advice. I have a couple more questions as I move forward with PB implementations. In the documentation it states that PBs don't make good first class citizens in an OO domain model and the suggestion is of course to wrap the PB. Through some other posts it is q