[protobuf] Re: .proto file version constant

2010-09-10 Thread Jesper
On Sep 10, 9:03 pm, Daniel Wright wrote: > 2010/9/10 Jesper > > > > > > > > > On Sep 10, 7:10 pm, Jason Hsueh wrote: > > > Can you provide a small reproduction of the problem? A couple common > > errors: > > > - custom options need to be specified as "option () = > > ;" > > > (parentheses arou

Re: [protobuf] Re: .proto file version constant

2010-09-10 Thread Daniel Wright
2010/9/10 Jesper > > On Sep 10, 7:10 pm, Jason Hsueh wrote: > > Can you provide a small reproduction of the problem? A couple common > errors: > > - custom options need to be specified as "option () = > ;" > > (parentheses around the identifier) > > - if you're using the option in a different pa

[protobuf] Re: .proto file version constant

2010-09-10 Thread Jesper
On Sep 10, 7:10 pm, Jason Hsueh wrote: > Can you provide a small reproduction of the problem? A couple common errors: > - custom options need to be specified as "option () = ;" > (parentheses around the identifier) > - if you're using the option in a different package than the one in which > its

[protobuf] Re: .proto file version constant

2010-09-10 Thread Jesper
On Sep 9, 5:45 pm, "users " wrote: > Can this be accomplished using a required field with a default value? As I understand it, no. I think this has been discussed previously, and the problem is that default values are not encoded in the message. -- You received this message because you ar

[protobuf] Re: .proto file version constant

2010-09-09 Thread users ....
Can this be accomplished using a required field with a default value? Each time you update the .proto you update the default value. Obviously if you were collaborating with teams you would have to either remove the setter methods or trust developers. On Sep 9, 2:42 am, Jesper wrote: > I would lik