On Mar 6, 11:07 am, "Jon Skeet <[email protected]>" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 6, 2:23 pm, aepensky <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
