A minor addition to my last note:

(1) I think that dealing with version-compatibility should be
straightforward, but of course, renaming fields becomes a
compatibility-breaking change.

(2) there are spots where one would have to "skip" a field (b/c one doesn't
have metadata for it, hence it's not part of the current defined message).
This could be done by simply parenthesis-counting.

Perhaps there are other issues, but I sort of suspect that they can all be
dealt-with, since fundamentally this is just about how to infer the type-id
& field-id from the field-name, and not much more.

--chet--

Reply via email to