blankensteiner commented on PR #275: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/pull/275#issuecomment-3292441298
Hi @rmannibucau It is nice if Google.Protobuf got support for syntax="proto2" (can we confirm that this is the case and that it is stable and not experimental?); however, how are you then generating the cs-file? Normally, not using protobuf-net, I would skip the step of generating a cs-file and just include the proto-file in the project: `<Protobuf Include="whatever.proto" GrpcServices="None" />` It seems a bit strange that the generated cs-file is now 10 times as big? On a conceptual front, it has been over 5 years since protobuf-net v3 was released, so changing the dependency to support end-users using protobuf-net v2 feels a bit much. I suspect that most people are using Google.Protobuf and by using protobuf-net, we are actually freeing them to choose the version of Google.Protobuf that they prefer. The real solution is for .NET/C# to support features in dependencies, so that the end-user could choose between protobuf-net and Google.Protobuf, but sadly, that is not an option. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
