On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Purtell wrote: > >> That might be because protobuf documentation, and I'd assume accumulated >> practice based upon it, warns against using generated pbuf objects >> directly >> as model classes. (See the "Protocol Buffers and O-O Design" callout on >> https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/javatutorial.) >> > > Assuming that's the case, that makes sense. It was just not clear to me if > Julian and I were just talking past each other or if there was some fallacy > I was suggesting. This differentiation between wire protocol and API is something that I have seen repeatedly in ex-Googlers. I was a bit curious since it seemed nice to have one definition for both levels. My opinion has verged to be 100% with the Google philosophy of separation after watching how the MapR internals work. This kind of separation has really paid off in many instances. Having too tight a lock between wire and API would have been nearly disastrous for either comprehensibility of the API or efficiency of the wire. I can't share specifics, but if second-hand opinions are useful, you now have mine.
