Re: [protobuf] Will protobuf support JSON?

I can see it now, thank you. Btw congrats on the official 3.0 release! Good work indeed. On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 4:13:49 PM UTC-4, Feng Xiao wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Alfred Kwan <alfr...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> I use the C++ pack

Re: [protobuf] Will protobuf support JSON?

I use the C++ package. On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 6:39:26 PM UTC-4, Feng Xiao wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Alfred Kwan <alfr...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> I looked at the 3.0 beta package and I believe the JSON support is not in >> yet. Am I corr

Re: [protobuf] Will protobuf support JSON?

I looked at the 3.0 beta package and I believe the JSON support is not in yet. Am I correct? On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 2:56:16 PM UTC-4, Feng Xiao wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Mikhail Melnik > wrote: > >> There is mention in official documentation >>

[protobuf] Check whether a oneof field is set via reflection(C++ in v3.0.0-alpha-2)

I would like to check (via reflection) whether a particular field within a oneof. This is the example message: message Foo { oneof Bar { int32 A = 1; string B = 2; } } I browse through the .h and it seems like the only plausible check is to examine it via

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

the has_value is private. Is there a reason such a useful and short method is declared private (it implementation only uses public functionality as well) On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-5, Alfred Kwan wrote: Thanks for pointing me to oneof. I gave it a try and I have two

Re: [protobuf] Re: How to check empty message object

I meant the hazzers have to go away for proto3 ;-) We have been evaluating proto2 vs proto3 and I have posted a few questions/issue about the 'has_foo()' logic, their answers gave me an impression of this is related to the default value. Btw the alpha-1 release notes

[protobuf] Re: How to check empty message object

There are more than just the rationale of most users don't use the field presence logic much. If I understand it correctly, Google wants to make proto3 available to other languages (e.g. Ruby) where there is no concept of default values, meanwhile 'has_foo()' relies on the default value, which

[protobuf] Questions about Protocol Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-2

It is surprising to see there is no post about the alpha-2 released! (release note was dated in February 26th) We have came across a few bugs in the C++ alpha-1 release so I hope they are being addressed in alpha-2. I would like to know a few things about this release: 1. Will there be a list

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

:04 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote: The union types are obsoleted by oneof: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alfred Kwan alfr...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

It seems to be an annoyance now to implement the recommended union types https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/techniques#union with the 3.0 because has_foo() is not longer supported. Instead of one bool for each possible message within the union, what do you think about adding a