I don't think that tooling exists todo this, but even if it did I would
strongly advice against it. I've worked in a project where proto's where
created for C# classes and keeping the proto's compatible with each change
of the C# classes was a nightmare.
The great thing of working with proto's as
пн, 12 авг. 2019 г. в 23:51, Adam Cozzette :
> Proto3 doesn't have a concept of field presence for singular primitive
> fields, so for example there is no difference between an integer field set
> to 0 and that same field being unset entirely.
>
But in this case it will be impossible to
That why you have the Well Known Wrapper Types. They are included in the
proto repo and live right next to the Timestamp and Duration:
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/master/src/google/protobuf/wrappers.proto
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 10:43 Denis Feklushkin
wrote:
>
>
> пн, 12
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:43 AM Denis Feklushkin
wrote:
>
>
> пн, 12 авг. 2019 г. в 23:51, Adam Cozzette :
>
>> Proto3 doesn't have a concept of field presence for singular primitive
>> fields, so for example there is no difference between an integer field set
>> to 0 and that same field being
чт, 22 авг. 2019 г. в 23:17, Adam Cozzette :
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:43 AM Denis Feklushkin <
> feklushkin.de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> пн, 12 авг. 2019 г. в 23:51, Adam Cozzette :
>>
>>> Proto3 doesn't have a concept of field presence for singular primitive
>>> fields, so for example
Hi Alex,
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I agree with you on designing the protos
first and using it in different languages. I will work in that direction.
Regards,
Srinivas
On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 12:22:33 AM UTC-7, Alex Van Boxel wrote:
>
> I don't think that tooling exists todo this,
