On Jan 6, 3:11 pm, Chris wrote:
> Perhaps the attached file is a useful addition to the protocol-buffers
> test suite — perhaps not for the core languages but it will serve as a
> concrete problem case for the other language generators to solve.
Just to make it absolutely explicit - are you ha
FYI, fixing this is on my todo list... along with a zillion other things...
:/
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Paul Carduner wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying to set a dependency on the protobuf package for another
> python package I am developing. Whenever I try to install my python
> packa
> Right. That way we can use the "length-delimited" wire type for this, so
> old parsers will be able to skip it.
Cool, that's exactly what I was thinking.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol B
I am also looking for this plugin to be complete (I was thinking of
writing one myself), but here's an example to get you going until it's
finished. I created a directory src/main/protobuf in my maven project
and put a single "test.proto" file in there, and added this to my
pom.xml:
--- snip ---
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Alek Storm wrote:
>
> Just to clarify (because I can't find this addressed anywhere else),
> the length delimeter for repeated fields will be the byte count of the
> whole array, not the count of its elements, right? So an array of 3
> fixed32's would have length
Just to clarify (because I can't find this addressed anywhere else),
the length delimeter for repeated fields will be the byte count of the
whole array, not the count of its elements, right? So an array of 3
fixed32's would have length 12, not 3.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~--
Sorry, we're trying to get it implemented in Java and Python first. I'm
reviewing the Java implementation today. (Protobuf development can be slow
since no one works on it as their main project...)
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Caleb wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 3 2008, 2:53 pm, Kenton Varda wrot
On Dec 3 2008, 2:53 pm, Kenton Varda wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:14 AM, gregg wrote:
> > What's the status of the "packed" option for repeated fields? Is this
> > still intended for a future protobuf release? I searched for "packed"
> > and the last post in this group about it was i
