So, could you possibly give me the work around for it? It would be very
helpful. Thanks!
On Friday, 9 February 2018 17:06:45 UTC+5:30, Yaseen Khan wrote:
>
> I'm trying to get the descriptor for my proto message. In java there is
> this, Message.getDescriptor()
> which does the job but its hard
What do you want to do with the descriptors?
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Yaseen Khan
wrote:
> So, could you possibly give me the work around for it? It would be very
> helpful. Thanks!
>
> On Friday, 9 February 2018 17:06:45 UTC+5:30, Yaseen Khan wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to get the descript
Trying to create dynamic forms by reading proto msgs.
On 13-Feb-2018 22:48, "Adam Cozzette" wrote:
> What do you want to do with the descriptors?
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Yaseen Khan
> wrote:
>
>> So, could you possibly give me the work around for it? It would be very
>> helpful. T
But ordinarily you parse messages without needing any descriptors--why do
need a descriptor to read your message?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Yaseen Khan
wrote:
> Trying to create dynamic forms by reading proto msgs.
>
> On 13-Feb-2018 22:48, "Adam Cozzette" wrote:
>
>> What do you want to
A dynamic form needs keys and values(if any) to be fed to it to create a
form. I was thinking I could get the names of the properties in a msg with
a descriptor and feeding it to create a dynamic form.
Although a crude way of doing it is converting the jspb proto object to a
normal Object and read
Ah, I see. I would try to find a way to do this without trying to rely on
reflection, perhaps by serializing the names you need inside a proto
message without using the actual field names.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Yaseen Khan
wrote:
> A dynamic form needs keys and values(if any) to be fe
I'm sorry I don't understand. How would you serialise the field names?
On 13-Feb-2018 23:32, "Adam Cozzette" wrote:
> Ah, I see. I would try to find a way to do this without trying to rely on
> reflection, perhaps by serializing the names you need inside a proto
> message without using the actua
I mean to say just don't rely on the field names at all, and instead store
all the information you need in the serialized message. For example, your
serialized message could store a map that maps the string
property name to another message called DataType describing the kind of
data associated with
But a single message can have various data types as seen in the example..
The message Master {..}
On 13-Feb-2018 23:41, "Adam Cozzette" wrote:
I mean to say just don't rely on the field names at all, and instead store
all the information you need in the serialized message. For example, your
seri
Oneof fields are great for representing that, though:
https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Yaseen Khan
wrote:
> But a single message can have various data types as seen in the example..
> The message Master {..}
>
> On 13-Feb-2018 23:4
But that oneof says, only one field should be set at a time , and in my
example I need all of my fields to be set.
On 13-Feb-2018 23:49, "Adam Cozzette" wrote:
> Oneof fields are great for representing that, though: https://developers.
> google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof
>
> On Tue, F
11 matches
Mail list logo
