separate files per each message type
Hi guys! I'm a new user. Can somebody kindly tell me how do I generate classes in separate files (h’ and cpp’ files for each message)? Thanks! Omer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: separate files per each message type
You would have to define each message in a separate .proto file. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys! I'm a new user. Can somebody kindly tell me how do I generate classes in separate files (h' and cpp' files for each message)? Thanks! Omer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Interface and Implementation
Hi Jeff, I've read your message a few times now and I have to admit I don't really understand what you're getting at. Can you give a small example of each of the approaches you're considering? On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:06 AM, codeazure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any thoughts on the use of PB message definitions for interface only or throughout the implementation code as well? I am planning a very modular application, where each module uses PB as it's interface to external applications and inter-machine communications within itself. Should I be only writing PB definitions, generating C++ files and only using those? Or should I write C++ headers with the implementation version and only use PB for the interface? I can easily imagine using a PB generated header file in my implementation, calling the accessor functions taking advantage of the other support features in the Message class. But I'm not sure if this is a good approach. I understand that function calls are a different question I should only use RPC definitions when I am actually connecting to a remote application, and not for internal function calls. To put it another way, should I use the Bridge (or possibly Facade) design pattern when using PB or should my data structures be defined in one place only? Thanks, Jeff --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: separate files per each message type
Thanks Kenton. I got it by now :) Is it written in the docs? If not, it should be. Thanks again - it's a wonderful tool. Cheers, Omer On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Kenton Varda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You would have to define each message in a separate .proto file. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys! I'm a new user. Can somebody kindly tell me how do I generate classes in separate files (h' and cpp' files for each message)? Thanks! Omer --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Sparc 64-bit bug fixed
I just submitted revision 72, which fixes the bug that caused the tests to crash on 64-bit sparc machines. It turns out DynamicMessage computed some byte offsets incorrectly leading to alignment problems. The new code should be more robust. I'll probably do a 2.0.3 release within the next week or two to get all these bug fixes out there. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Protocol Buffers group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
