Why do your protocol message types have to map 1:1 with your legacy classes?
Generally, attempting to map inheritance onto Protocol Buffers doesn't work
very well.
You are right that you can use extensions, but unless you have a large
number of subclasses of OParameter, this isn't helpful. If the
Hi Kenton,
Sorry the parameter classes are legacy code and persisted to the DB as
well. So I have to figure out what's the best approach defining my
proto classes.
What I see is that there is the way of using extensions in the proto
files. As far as I understand it is an extension of members (an
Can you just have the OParameter message contain optional fields of type
string and int64, where only one of the two is ever set? Then don't have
specific types corresponding to OStringParameter and OLongParameter.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Tai wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have an (abstract) clas
Hi,
I have an (abstract) class:
- OParameter with a member String key
Now there are also two subclasses of OParameter:
- OStringParameter with a member String value
- OLongParameter with a member long value
By using Protocol Buffers I define the proto files:
- OParameterMessage.proto
- OStringP
