Can you write a small example program demonstrating your problem? I can then debug it.
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 8:33 AM, <nullsqua...@gmail.com> wrote: > PS. is there a reason the compiler turns camelCaseFields into > noncamelcasefields, but messageNamesAreStillPreservedWithCamelCase? Historical reasons. In the early days of protocol buffers, there was disagreement about the style that field names should use. The Google C++ style guide says that field names (and their accessors) should be lowercase-with-underscores, whereas Java users prefer camelcase. As a result, we ended up with .proto files using both styles. At some point someone decided that the generated C++ code should force field names to lower-case to match the C++ style guide, and someone else decided that the Java code generator should force names to camelcase to match the Java style guide. Eventually, we ended up standardizing on lowercase-with-underscores for field names in .proto files, as documented in the style guide: http://code.google.com/apis/protocolbuffers/docs/style.html . The transformation of camelcase to lowercase in the C++ code generator had to stay for compatibility reasons. Class names, on the other hand, use camelcase in both C++ and Java at Google. So we don't transform those. I recommend following the style guide for best results. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---