I have a few thoughts after looking at the generated Java source.

No particular order...

- why does the class have to be final? I can see one wanting to have
business logic (or data type manipulation logic) that protobufs don't
provide in a class that extends the protobuf itself.

- why use static inner classes to build the API?  Perhaps the compiler
can't write new .java files?  In .protos with lots of classes this can
get pretty ugly pretty fast.  Are there technical reasons do to this?
I was thinking that one solution could be to have two different
generation styles.  One that uses the more common POJO format and
another that uses this current static inner class format.

My thinking on the current format is that Java developers are going to
look at this and be all WTF and then walk away.......  maybe it's just
me ;)

Thoughts?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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