On Mar 6, 4:55 pm, aepensky <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, I realize that wasn't a very clear statement... > > What I mean is, if there is an option which does not leave any > "fingerprint" in either the serialized message or the > FileDescriptorSet, so that you can't tell how the option was set by > looking at either of these, then the option is controlling only code > generation and is not affecting the service contract. So it should > not be in the .proto file. > > I think that applies to the package statement as well as > optimize_for. Protocol Buffers does not put globally unique > signatures into the messages or descriptors based on your package > declaration. It only affects the code generation.
It's definitely in the descriptor set - because that's what my C# generator uses! I agree that it doesn't affect the wire format of the messages themselves, but I still think a world in which everyone who uses the same package/namespace for the same proto for each language is a saner one. (i.e. all Java users will see one package; all C# users will see one namespace, etc. There can be differences between languages, but at least two users of the same language have a common namespace). It's certainly a personal thing, and again maybe you should be able to *override* it from the command line, but I think it makes sense to at least put "default" package/namespace options into the proto file. Jon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
