...
I think union types are the best choice for a "small" number of possible messages. However, if you really need to support *any* type of message, you could consider adding a "header" message of a known type that includes the fully-qualified message name as returned by message->GetDescriptor()->full_name(), or some other unique "message type" indicator.
Good luck,
Evan --
Evan Jones
Union types in combination with 'extensions' seems like the right solution for this problem in almost all cases, whether the number of message types is large or small.
Using a separate header message adds lots of complications as you then need to write additional code to instantiate the 'payload' message type etc... I was using a header message a while back, and migrated to union types with great success. Granted, I do still have a fairly small number of message types, but I am not aware of any issues which would arise from scaling to a very large set of messages. Are there known issues which arise from a union type with a large number of extensions?
Alex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
