Ben - Could you show some examples on using FieldOptions for this kind of
validation? How would you map the actual field name to its validation rules?
On Thursday, June 2, 2011 10:31:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Wright wrote:
> You can use custom field options to support validation of this type.
> Take a look at extending com.google.FieldOptions
> You can create an option field like "max_inclusive" and then access it
> at run-time from the FieldDescriptor and use the information for
> Unfortunately this is still just a "suggestion" - you will still have
> to validate with custom-written code.
> PS: I have done this before and it worked out pretty well because the
> validation code did not have to have special information about the
> data structure, just access to the FieldDescriptor at run time.
> On May 30, 6:54 am, Marco Tedone <marco.ted...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I'm checking the protobuf language definition and I couldn't find
> > anywhere support for numeric range. In XSD, for instance, one could
> > have:
> > <simpleType name="ZeroToTen">
> > <restriction base="int">
> > <minInclusive value="0" />
> > <maxInclusive value="10" />
> > </restriction>
> > </simpleType>
> > However I couldn't find equivalent translation in the proto language
> > definition. I could find defaults and enums, but not number ranges.
> > Regards,
> > Marco
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.