Re: [protobuf] can protobuf3 be used with protobuf2?

Why does adding JSON require dropping unknown fields? So long as fields are keyed to field number, I don't see why the JSON encoding requires special treatment with respect to the binary one. I can understand how transitioning between major versions may require breaks in compatibility. However,

Re: [protobuf] can protobuf3 be used with protobuf2?

After studying proto3 pretty carefully, I’ve come around quite a bit on these changes: I believe adding JSON requires dropping unknown fields. You simply cannot preserve unknown fields and properly support multiple encodings. I’m less sure about replacing extension support with Any.

Re: [protobuf] can protobuf3 be used with protobuf2?

Big fan of 4, 5, 6, and 7. Huge un-fan of 2, and 3. I am mixed on 1 because I love the removal of required fields, hate the removal of field presence. All the changes I dislike are significant losses in functionality and break compatibility with existing users of proto2 and I'd be interested to

Re: [protobuf] Default Values vs Missing Values

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 > 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

Re: [protobuf] Default Values vs Missing Values

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 > 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

Re: [protobuf] Default Values vs Missing Values

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Teddy Zhang 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,

Re: [protobuf] can protobuf3 be used with protobuf2?

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Artem Kazakov wrote: > +1 > Yes, a checklist would be extremely helpful. > > > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:04:56 PM UTC-4, Kostiantyn Shchepanovskyi > wrote: >> >> It would be nice to have a migration guide (checklist) somewhere, like: >> >>

Re: [protobuf] can protobuf3 be used with protobuf2?

Protobuf schema evolution rules: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#updating On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:09:15 AM UTC-7, Artem Kazakov wrote: > > +1 > Yes, a checklist would be extremely helpful. > > On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:04:56 PM UTC-4, Kostiantyn

Re: [protobuf] can protobuf3 be used with protobuf2?

+1 Yes, a checklist would be extremely helpful. On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:04:56 PM UTC-4, Kostiantyn Shchepanovskyi wrote: > > It would be nice to have a migration guide (checklist) somewhere, like: > > 1. All fields should be optional. > 2. Do not use custom defailt values. > 3. All enums

[protobuf] protobuf-java-shaded-[241|250|261]

Hi all, If you ever had runtime compatibility issues with different versions of protobuf-java used in the same application, protobuf-java-shaded-[241|250|261] may be of interest: https://github.com/os72/protobuf-java-shaded-241 https://github.com/os72/protobuf-java-shaded-250

[protobuf] Re: Protobuf : How to generate the descriptor file dynamically from .proto

I had a similar discussion some months ago. What you want is to generate the TypeRegistry at Runtime. I did this by using the following approach: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/fnhsS9tVhyc/9pkapOl-AQAJ Therefore you don't have to gereate the file descriptors but just use the ones you

Re: [protobuf] How to erase particular field with MergeFrom()

And instead of encapsulating the field mask into a new message, you should be alright to just use google.protobuf.FieldMask as it is already a message by itself (in case that you don't add other data to RepAndOptMask of course). Am Dienstag, 17. Mai 2016 10:51:04 UTC+2 schrieb Denis Bakhvalov:

Re: [protobuf] Any vs. oneof in message wrappers

Hi Feng, Thank you for the answer. Good point about redundant type information in the header message. Regards, /David On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 11:01:47 PM UTC+2, Feng Xiao wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:30 AM, 'David Koch' via Protocol Buffers < > prot...@googlegroups.com >

[protobuf] Re: Protobuf : How to generate the descriptor file dynamically from .proto

This works in Java, perhaps you can adapt it to C# (?) https://github.com/os72/protobuf-dynamic Is there DynamicMessage in the C# API? On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 10:30:18 AM UTC-7, jigmesh...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > I wanted to generate FileDescriptor dynamically from .proto without >

Re: [protobuf] Dynamic/run-time decoding

At least in Java, you can do everything fully dynamically at runtime. The native API can get quite confusing (between all the protos/descriptors/files...). I distilled following wrapper to make it easier: https://github.com/os72/protobuf-dynamic On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:32:29 PM UTC-7,

[protobuf] Re: Checking compatibility

Check out the protobuf schema evolution rules, you may find it's actually simpler with protobuf and don't have to keep track of writer schemas like in Avro: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#updating Corresponding to Avro GenericRecord you would use protobuf