Daniel, Thanks for explaining that! That actually makes a lot of sense now that I think about it, because it means you can even change the field names, and still maintain wire format compatibility. That's important, because I often choose bad field names initially, and wish I could change them later.
Thanks, Meel On Jul 9, 1:23 pm, Daniel Wright <dwri...@google.com> wrote: > You need to specify the numbers so that if you later remove a field or > rearrange the fields in the file, the numbers stay the same. Protobufs put > a lot of effort into maintaining wire format compatibility as code changes. > > Daniel > > On Jul 9, 2010 8:25 AM, "Meel" <meel.velli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > I am new to Protocol Buffers. I have been reading about it, and it > > seems like the solution that I have long been looking for. Thanks guys > > for making this an open source project! It all seems to make a lot of > > sense, but one thing puzzles me: the explicit specification of field > > numbers. Is it really required to specify the field numbers, or can > > they be optional? In every example I looked at, they just go > > sequentially 1,2,3,etc., so can they just be implicit? > > > Thanks, > > > Meel > > > -- > > 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<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > .> For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > > -- 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.
