While experimenting with LITE_RUNTIME I noticed that the C++ methods
DebugString() and ShortDebugString() are only present on Message, not
MessageLite.
I understand that DebugString()/ShortDebugString() are implemented via
reflection, which isn't available in the lite runtime, but what about a
The problem is the root certificate (CA Cert Signing Authority) - it
certainly isn't in my trusted set of root certificates...
On Aug 19, 3:50 am, opticron nyphb...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a CACert certificate that is valid until May of 2010.
On Aug 18, 7:46 pm, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com
Thanks for your answers!
Just another ``trivial´´ question:
Let's assume that I've installed Protocol Buffers on my Windows(tm)
machine so that I'm able to generate language-specific stubs. I could
transfer them to the target system runnnig Solaris. Do the stubs still
depend on a protocol
What certificate authorities would be acceptable for this purpose? I
see that Chrome has root certs for only verisign and thawte, but
that's still in beta and can hardly be considered a realistic
sampling. The Mozilla project has root certs for MANY more than that.
On Aug 19, 2:41 am, Marc
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 02:19, Kenton Vardaken...@google.com wrote:
The problem with these spec files is that they're large and complicated and
I just don't have time to learn how they work and maintain them. If someone
would like to commit to maintaining these things -- which means I'd call
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Kevin Deldycke ke...@deldycke.com wrote:
BTW, should we continue packaging-related discussion of protobuf here ?
Please do.
Is this issue worth a bug report ?
Well, I haven't observed this problem on other platforms or distros. What
happens if you write
Makes sense. I'm happy to accept a patch along these lines.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.comwrote:
While experimenting with LITE_RUNTIME I noticed that the C++ methods
DebugString() and ShortDebugString() are only present on Message, not
MessageLite.
Sigh. More bugs in descriptor bootstrapping, eh?
The problem is that without RTTI, MergeFrom(const Message other) cannot
tell if other is actually the exact same class as this, so it has to
fall back to reflection... but reflection does not work if descriptors
aren't available... and we're in
The source code generated by protoc is identical regardless of what platform
protoc itself is executed on. The runtime library is always required.
The Java code (and the Python code, and probably Perl too though that's a
third-party implementation) is completely platform-neutral so it should work
Nope, there hasn't been any off-list discussion.
Personally I have no opinion on the matter since it doesn't affect anything
that I do with protocol buffers. However, the Google Wave people -- who are
developing an open-source protocol that will use protocol buffers -- seem to
care about this and
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi
Using 2.2.0, the compiler doesn't seem to be generating Java code for
the parseFrom(byte[],int,int) and
parseFrom(byte[],int,int,ExtensionRegistryLite) static methods.
Did it ever generate those methods? I
I get the error in Chrome, Firefox, and even IE (all on Windows), so I don't
think the problem can be blamed on Chrome lacking root certificates.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:03 AM, opticron nyphb...@gmail.com wrote:
What certificate authorities would be acceptable for this purpose? I
see that
Hello,
In 2.1, one could build() multiple objects in sequence, with the same
builder object, by clear()ing it repeatedly.
In 2.2, attempting this throws an exception -- from what I can tell a
builder can only be used to create a single PB object.
What's the rationale behind this decision?
On Aug 20, 1:09 am, Kenton Varda ken...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:00 PM, pwr daniel.pa...@gmail.com wrote:
In 2.1, one could build() multiple objects in sequence, with the same
builder object, by clear()ing it repeatedly.
No, you couldn't, at least according to the
Kenton Varda wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.com
mailto:oliver.jow...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Using 2.2.0, the compiler doesn't seem to be generating Java code for
the parseFrom(byte[],int,int) and
Feel free to send a patch.
It would be nice if we could also move the meat of all the parseFrom methods
into AbstractMessageLite -- as protected static methods that take the
message default instance as the first parameter -- so that the generated
code can be as simple as possible. I'm worried
16 matches
Mail list logo
