when we can moving to proto3, any issue to track it. 2016-06-24 5:44 GMT+08:00 Alex Rukletsov <[email protected]>:
> Not only `required` documents the intention, it helps us writing less > validation code. > > For example, look at `Entity` fields and motivation behind making them > required [1]. Before making this change we were discussing the alternative > `optional` + extra validation, but decided to go the `required` way because > it is *less* code. > > I understand arguments against `required` (though downgrade to `optional` > is possible with our support policy). We will have to go through the change > `required` -> `optional` anyway—and write a bunch of validation code—if we > decide to move to proto3. > > I agree with the suggestion to be mindful about adding new required fields. > However, in certain cases I still see value from using them and would > exploit this possibility while we are still on proto2. > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/30d703fe81eacf64e9d84503074579cf5667bea1/include/mesos/authorizer/acls.proto > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Joris Van Remoortere < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- Deshi Xiao Twitter: xds2000 E-mail: xiaods(AT)gmail.com
