On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Alex Antonov <a...@antonov.ws> wrote:
> Kenton, > > Those are all good points, I agree with you that this kinda coupling > could be dangerous and cause trouble if mismanaged. > I'm trying to think of a way to keep this protoc safe but at the same > time provide the kind of functionality the interface declaration would > bring. > Problem is that having the interface support requires the code to be > actually compiled with the interface declaration, so nothing along the > lines of doing something "magical" with dynamic proxies or anything > like that seem like it would work (without using the reflection that > is). Anything proposed by Chris with separating the declarations via > "java_ext" that might work? > Not sure what you mean. > How about some sort of a templating support maybe (I remember we were > discussing that at some point for the "setOrClear" support)? > Rewriting the protocol compiler to use some sort of template system is not something we really have resources for. That said, the plugins thing I'm working on may be useful to similar ends. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@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.
