Re: [protobuf] Default Values vs Missing Values

> On Mar 26, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Yoav H wrote: > > Hi, > > I wanted ask regarding the decision to populate fields with default values, > even if they do not appear in the encoded message. > If I want to send a "patch" message, where I want to update just the provided

Re: [protobuf] Default Values vs Missing Values

Thanks all, Do you know where I can find the proto2 encoding guide? The proto site has only the proto3 encoding described. On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 12:21:39 PM UTC-7, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > > > On Mar 26, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Yoav H > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >

Re: [protobuf] Default Values vs Missing Values

Encoding is identical... just the API is different. In proto2, you have (in C++) FooMessage->has_field() which will tell you whether a field was present in the encoded version (or has been set prior if you're building a new message). The Java API has something rather similar... hasField() I think?

[protobuf] Default Values vs Missing Values

Hi, I wanted ask regarding the decision to populate fields with default values, even if they do not appear in the encoded message. If I want to send a "patch" message, where I want to update just the provided fields, how can I do that with protobuf (without adding IsXXXSet for every field)?

Re: [protobuf] Default Values vs Missing Values

Use proto2, which has the has_* checks per field. (Using get_* you still get the default value, of course.) It's extremely unfortunate that this functionality was removed in proto3, I see that making proto3 unattractive for all but the simplest uses of protos. I know in almost every protobuf

[protobuf] Re: Streaming Serialization - Suggestion

Any comment on this? Will you consider this for proto3? On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:50:36 AM UTC-7, Yoav H wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a suggestion fr improving the protobuf encoding. > Is proto3 final? > > I like the simplicity of the encoding of protobuf. > But I think it has one issue