I think it would be great to comment in place e.g. `/* required */ optional <field>`. It's difficult enough as is to extract the semantics out of the current Protos. The required helped document which fields were actually required.
— *Joris Van Remoortere* Mesosphere On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Jie Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > Proto3 killed 'required' keyword. > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Jay JN Guo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I find marking protobuf field as 'required' sometimes causing trouble: > > serializing a message without filling up required field generates errors > > and this is hard to change due to backwards compatibility. And this > message > > type is actually discouraged by protobuf: > > > > > https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#specifying-field-rules > > > > So is there a particular reason we are doing it? I would suggest to use > > optional and repeated onwards if possible and add more verification logic > > instead. > > > > /Jay > > >
