I see two problems with this approach. It is neither cut & paste nor personal preference issue as I see. The real issues I see are:
1) The base message (MSG in the example) and the extended message (MSG2 in the example ) can belong to different package owned by different group/org. The package defining base message (MSG) (call it Pkg1) does not event know the existing of the package defining extended message (MSG2) (call it Pkg2). How can the base message foresee all the extended message from it? Even if Pkg1 and Pkg2 are owned by the same group/org, making Pkg1 aware of Pkg2 is not a good idea as it can potentially create cyclic dependencies. 2) Polymorphic Lists: I have a list of MSG types which can potentially have both MSG and MSG2 types. How is this modeled in proto3 using the proposed solution? These are real issues which I am facing right now. Any suggestions to handle the above problems would be of great help. > > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
