I think that would be great. Thanks, Tim! ---- *Josh Humphries* Manager, Shared Systems | Platform Engineering Atlanta, GA | 678-400-4867 *Square* (www.squareup.com)
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Tim Emiola <temi...@google.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > We never actually published it - I'll clean up the patch I was using and > push it to a branch on my github fork of beefcake. Will that do ? > > Tim > > > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:06:09 AM UTC-8, Eric Zundel Ayers wrote: >> >> Hi Josh (Haberman), >> >> Do you have any pointers for us in the patches for the beefcake gem? We >> were hoping we might be able to use that with our development while we >> worked on the protoc patches. >> >> We tried using the stock beefcake gem and didn't get very far with our >> internal proto definitions. The README for the current open source >> version says that it doesn't support imports, which is a pretty fundamental >> restriction! >> >> -Eric. >> >> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 5:44:52 PM UTC-5, Josh Haberman wrote: >>> >>> Hi Josh, >>> >>> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 3:17:11 PM UTC-8, Josh Humphries wrote: >>>> >>>> I am actively pursuing moving a proprietary RPC mechanism to GRPC. And >>>> the languages currently needed are Ruby, Go, and Java. >>>> >>>> I didn't realize before trying a few things today that the newly added >>>> languages/platforms in proto3 (e.g. Ruby) cannot generate code via protoc >>>> for language level 2. This looks like it could be a serious blocker for >>>> what I and my team want to do. >>>> >>>> Is this stance, to not support language level 2, a hard stance? We >>>> cannot (nor do we even want to) move all of our protos to language level 3. >>>> We use extensions. >>>> >>>> *If we wanted to contribute a patch to protoc to support language level >>>> 2 in Ruby, would it be accepted?* >>>> >>> >>> Yes most definitely! We have wanted to add this for a while, we just >>> hadn't gotten to it yet. >>> >>> This would involve (as you say): >>> >>> - augmenting the schema DSL so you can define proto2 types in addition >>> to proto3 ones. >>> - adding field presence for proto2 primitive types (with hasbits) >>> - implementing proto2 enum semantics >>> - adding extension support >>> >>> I would love to talk over what the implementation would look like on >>> this. If you're down, we can talk more details. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Josh >>> >>>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups " > grpc.io" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to grpc-io+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to grpc...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/ea0ac25e-52d7-41d5-8e6b-ec65b266c03a%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/ea0ac25e-52d7-41d5-8e6b-ec65b266c03a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
