Well, either system can convert either way (hopefully).  The question is in
which format the user prefers to write their schemas -- they should only
have to write one.  Personally I'd prefer to write mine in .proto, but I'm
probably biased.  :)

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:06 AM, sim <simon.we...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Cool. New syntax I didn't know about!  I think this would be useful
> for converting the other way around (Proto-to-XML).
>
> On Sep 28, 6:05 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> > Interesting.
> >
> > Another way to do this would be to write code based on protobuf
> reflection
> > and custom options, so you could have a proto like:
> >   message Foo {
> >     optional int32 i = 1 [(xml_disposition) = ATTRIBUTE];
> >     optional Bar bar = 2 [(xml_disposition) = ELEMENT];
> >   }
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:14 AM, sim <simon.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all. Would anybody be interested in an XML to Protocol Buffers
> > > converter if it were opened up to the community?  I have an XML
> > > stylesheet that transforms an annotated XSD set into a Java class that
> > > uses JAXB and the Protocol Buffers Java API to convert XML documents
> > > into either text or binary mode Protocol Buffers messages.  The XSD
> > > annotations define the mappings from XSD elements to Proto messages
> > > (although at present staying close to a 1:1 mapping is probably
> > > safest). Some fancy XSD features are not yet supported but the usual
> > > complexTypes, simpleTypes, elements, and enumerations work.
> >
> > > Simon Weeks
> >
> >
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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