Do you have a minimal example?

On 4 June 2012 11:48, Ahmed Charfeddine <[email protected]> wrote:

> Knowlegeable answer.
> Ok it is very natural that within the scope of a single message, ids are
> required to be unique.
> But I'm putting all messages in one file and the compiler was complaining
> about shared ids. [?]
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Marc Gravell <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> it only has to be unique to the particular message - not unique globally.
>> The "why" is simply: because that is what it uses on the wire to identify
>> different members.
>>
>> If they weren't unique, clearly it wouldn't work. If they weren't
>> explicit (but were, say, assumed positionally) then it would not be
>> possible to version the contracts easily, and extension members wouldn't
>> make much sense.
>>
>> Or another way of considering it: ask the same question, but in the
>> context of a regular programming language: replace "id" with "member name".
>> Same thing - just less text on the wire.
>>
>> (if I've missed the point of your question, let me know)
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> On 4 June 2012 11:03, charfeddine.ahmed <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Why do we need to put a unique id to each member in a .proto file ?
>>> It is annoying when we need to make changes (add, remove members).
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Protocol Buffers" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> [email protected].
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marc
>>
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Marc

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.

<<B05.gif>>

Reply via email to