Hi Jeff, I've read your message a few times now and I have to admit I don't really understand what you're getting at. Can you give a small example of each of the approaches you're considering?
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:06 AM, codeazure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does anyone have any thoughts on the use of PB message definitions for > interface only or throughout the implementation code as well? > > I am planning a very modular application, where each module uses PB as > it's interface to external applications and inter-machine > communications within itself. > > Should I be only writing PB definitions, generating C++ files and only > using those? Or should I write C++ headers with the implementation > version and only use PB for the interface? > > I can easily imagine using a PB generated header file in my > implementation, calling the accessor functions & taking advantage of > the other support features in the Message class. But I'm not sure if > this is a good approach. > > I understand that function calls are a different question & I should > only use RPC definitions when I am actually connecting to a remote > application, and not for internal function calls. > > To put it another way, should I use the Bridge (or possibly Facade) > design pattern when using PB or should my data structures be defined > in one place only? > > Thanks, > Jeff > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
