On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Leandro Lucarella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I understand your concern but I don't think looking after the user should
> stay in the way of flexibility. I surely prefere flexibility than people
> looking after me just in case I can't meassure the consequences.


Sorry, my experience is that if I allow people to shoot themselves in the
foot, some people will, and then they will blame me for letting them, and
then I have to devise and maintain additional hacks that allow them to fix
their problem without tons of work.  I'm not saying that I think *you* would
shoot yourself in the foot, but *someone* will.


> And maybe I'm confused, but what's the risk here? Using some precompiled,
> stuff? Because if use some some third party .proto, and I generate it
> using a different extension, I can't think how that could break anything.


Depends.  descriptor.proto, for example, is provided as part of libprotobuf
itself.  If you want to import it, you would not be generating it yourself;
you would be using the header which is installed along with the other public
headers.  With your scheme, you won't be able to use descriptor.proto.  This
also means you won't be able to define custom options in version 2.0.2, as
soon as I get that code submitted.


> Ok, no problem, I'll just stay with my current hacks (mass rename + sed),
> because I don't want to maintain my own fork =)


This sounds fine to me.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to