Did you try to proposal the feature request to the protoStuff before? The suggestion that Zhengyangyong provided could save us lots of maintenance effort if we can work with the upstream project.
Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:29 AM, wjm wjm <zzz...@gmail.com> wrote: > i think it's impossible that we wait their decision and develop plan...... > > 2018-06-29 9:00 GMT+08:00 YangYongZheng <342906...@qq.com>: > > > I think we can communicate with protostuff let them know what we need; > > If they feel unnecessary, we may extend jackson protobuf plugin in order > > to support this. > > > > > > Best Regards! > > YangYongZheng > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: wjm wjm [mailto:zzz...@gmail.com] > > 发送时间: 2018年6月28日 16:46 > > 收件人: dev@servicecomb.apache.org > > 主题: about protobuf codec switch from protoStuff to jackson > > > > protoStuff support all protobuf v3 features and very fast but protoStuff: > > 1.must based on java class, can not construct from idl, this is not good > > in edge. > > 2.can not support customize generic class > > > > jackson protobuf plugin is good in other feature, but : > > only support protobuf v2 features > > some scenes slower than protoStuff, and others faster, it's not a big > > problem, we can optimize it in the future > > > > if we extend jackson protobuf plugin to support protobuf v3 features we > > must copy and modify source code, because there is no any plugable design > > for v3 feature it's "copy and modify", we will have too many problems > > > > what your suggestion to resolve the problem？ > > > > > > > > >
