I fully second that opinion. We rely a lot on being able to set explicit
defaults that are not language defaults (Java 0, , false, etc). It
puzzles me to even think as to why someone might want to take that feature
away!!!
On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 6:50:37 AM UTC-6, Jeremy Swigart
Look at this library: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-java-format/
On Jul 9, 4:40 pm, Rinku rinkuta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, Can someone help me get the decoded data stored in a protobuf
on to an xml file? How do I do that?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
I've tried to use the experimental Java support for writing the protoc
plugins from http://codereview.appspot.com/912042/show
Everything got compiled correctly but when I started using it, got the
following error:
protoc --java_out=. --plugin=protoc-gen-my --my_out=. config.proto
--my_out:
You might want to check out http://code.google.com/p/protostuff/
On Jul 3, 7:30 am, Pradeep Thomas ptprad...@gmail.com wrote:
We have an existing object model in java with hibernate annotations
for persistence.
For client-server communication what are the pros of cons of using
protocol
On Jun 22, 3:04 pm, Evan Jones ev...@mit.edu wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 15:35 , sheila miguez wrote:
I've got a servlet filter which wraps the HttpServletResponse. So, the
servlet response's output stream, which is wrapped in a stream from
the lzo library, is compressing data as it is
Jason, there is a project that contains the XML JSON marshalers for
protobuf and back which would do exactly what you want:
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-java-format
Thanks,
Alex
On Oct 13, 3:35 pm, Jason Smith jasonfsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote a generic proto-to-xml routine (using
For some reason this thread got forked: here is the second copy:
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf/browse_thread/thread/c4efd9f017d0b014?hl=entvc=2
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Protocol Buffers group.
To post to this group, send email to
Kenton,
Those are all good points, I agree with you that this kinda coupling
could be dangerous and cause trouble if mismanaged.
I'm trying to think of a way to keep this protoc safe but at the same
time provide the kind of functionality the interface declaration would
bring.
Problem is that
