Hi, your comments seem reasonable in some way. I mean, for the reason why google won't offer a sample part, you are right. But some of your comments are based on a subjective opinion. Isn't protobuf perfect for protocol encoding? Check it out! My opinion is from industry practice, I won't say it is absolutely true, but at least it is based on the reality.
And what I need is help, not debate. You really should put away your attitude which should rather be used at a platform like Weibo or youtube. We are not oppressing others' opinion, that's not the reason why we come here. I don't mean that I don't accept your criticizing, but I can't accept your attitude. Hope you understand. And you are more than welcome to share more constructive ideas, but hopefully in a more friendly way. Regards Zhiqian 在 2014年3月29日星期六UTC+8上午2时20分12秒，Feng Xiao写道： > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Zhiqian Yuan > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I don't know if there's anyone trying to defining a proto following >> OpenRTB2.1, and I have no idea why few people do this work, even google >> doesn't. (It's unreasonable since protobuf is born to serve protocols >> especially for RTB and OpenRTB project is even hosted on google code; but >> google doesn't even provide a sample for it. I just don't know why :( ) >> > I don't know the answer to your question, but seriously? Protobuf is born > to serve protocols especially for RTB? I would say protobuf has nothing to > do with RTB. It's born for a reason only google knows. Whether or not > OpenRTB is hosted on google code does not affect this fact. And a project > on google code does not mean a project from google. For OpenRTB google has > no responsibility to provide an example for it. > > >> >> So I try to implement a proto for OpenRTB2.1, everything works smoothly >> until when I met two tricky fields: category (cat) and content context. >> Those two fields are string type, but like other integer enumerations, they >> both have a range to set value. So I decide they should be implemented as >> string-valued enum type. But there's no such a thing either in C++ or in >> proto. >> >> So this is the only problem I met during the implementation, could >> anyone please help me on that:) Thanks a lot!!! >> >> Warm Regards from China :) >> Zhiqian >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
