On Mar 6, 11:07 am, "Jon Skeet <sk...@pobox.com>" <sk...@pobox.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:23 pm, aepensky <apen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for making it a compiler command-line option.
>
> > Pretty much all other IDLs get this wrong to some degree also.
> > Having annotations or options in the IDL file is nice, but make sure
> > they are only helping to define the message and the service, not the
> > implementation.
> > When I get a service definition from a service author I don't want to
> > be told how to optimize, or what namespace my generated classes should
> > go into.
> > Those things can be different for every client.  As it is now, a
> > client developer would have to mark up the .proto file that s/he
> > received from the service developer.
>
> Obviously I agree about the optimisation, but why the namespace?
> Surely the provider of the proto "owns" which namespace it should be
> in, don't they?
>
> Jon

Why?  It's a wire format.  Surely someone could use the proto from a
language which doesn't even support namespaces.



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to