Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2016-10-13 Thread Manivannan s
For Enums it is not possible - It's possible to import proto2 
 message types 
and use them in your proto3 messages, and vice versa. However, proto2 enums 
cannot be used in proto3 syntax.
https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto3 

On Friday, 16 January 2015 01:21:04 UTC+5:30, Feng Xiao wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue Jan 13 2015 at 3:17:26 PM Arjun Satish  > wrote:
>
>> Since this feature is never going to be exposed, what advice do you have 
>> for people who are using this feature and want to migrate to v3? Also, what 
>> can we do as users to skip encoding certain fields with the new library?
>>
> We are aware of the migration difficulties from v2 to v3 due to removed 
> features. As such we do not encourage existing users to migrate and commit 
> to continue the support for proto2 syntax.
>
> You could have both proto2 and proto3 syntax files in your project and 
> they are allowed to import each other despite the syntax differences.
>  
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Feng Xiao > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Arjun Satish >> > wrote:
>>>
 Feng,

 What do you mean when you say "In C++/Java/Python where we support both 
 proto2 and proto3, default values will continue to exist"?

>>> What I meant is that you can still find its traces in the implementation 
>>> but the feature itself is not exposed publicly in proto3 (i.e., we are 
>>> still using it under-the-hood).
>>>  
>>>
 When I run protoc (v3) with the syntax="proto3" tag, it shows an error 
 "Explicit default values are not allowed in proto3." and exits (no code is 
 generated). This does not let me use other proto 3 features if my proto 
 definition file contain default values.

 Thanks for your timely responses! Highly appreciate it!




 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Feng Xiao  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Arjun Satish  > wrote:
>
>> Would it be possible to re-introduce this feature in a subsequent 
>> release? It seems like you are still using it under-the-hood.
>>
> In C++/Java/Python where we support both proto2 and proto3, default 
> values will continue to exist. In new languages (e.g., ruby) though, the 
> support for non-zero default values will be dropped completely.
>  
>
>> And because of the benefits I mentioned above, I strongly feel that 
>> it will only help the community. 
>>
> As far as I know, the decision is final. Internally a lot Google 
> projects have already adopted the new syntax and so far we have not heard 
> problems caused by disallowing default values. It's unlikely this will be 
> changed in the future. The omission of this feature (and other features) 
> is 
> to make the language simpler and to allow more idiomatic implementations 
> in 
> a wider range of languages. It's believed this decision will help the 
> protobuf community (both protobuf maintainers and protobuf users) and we 
> expect proto3 to be a version that can be more easily adopted than proto2 
> by new users due to these simplifications. For existing users who rely on 
> removed features, they can continue to use proto2 and that will be 
> supported for a long time (if not forever). Currently we generally do not 
> recommend migrating existing proto2 projects to proto3 because of 
> incompatibility issues (e.g., extensions are dropped in proto3) and only 
> recommend new users to use proto3.
>  
>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Feng Xiao > > wrote:
>>
>>> +liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is 
>>> dropped from proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.
>>>
>>> Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of 
>>> people for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this 
>>> forum though...
>>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish >> > wrote:
>>>
 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?




 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish 
 wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Thanks for all the hard work!
>
> I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for 
> default values. Fields which are set to their default values are not 
> serialized. I noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  
> this 
> condition still holds true. But the default values used are the 
> standard 
> ones (0 for int64/int32 etc) and cannot be 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-10-21 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:39 PM,  wrote:

> Is there a plan to also arena allocate string fields?
>
In the future we will introduce different ctypes for string fields and if
you specify ctype=STRING_PIECE on a string field it will be stored as a
StringPiece and can then be arena-allocated. There is no timeline for when
this will be added though.


> --
> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-10-10 Thread Jon Skeet
Yes, just to expand on this - the descriptor protos aren't directly 
accessible, but the information contained within them is - via the public 
types in the Google.Protobuf.Reflection namespace.

We're able to do this because we've looked (very carefully!) at how 
descriptor.proto works in terms of proto3 - basically we generate code *as 
if* it were proto3 syntax, and have workarounds for couple of issues that 
throws up.

Jon

On Friday, 9 October 2015 19:18:42 UTC+1, Feng Xiao wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Walter Schulze  > wrote:
>
>> In other words C# and those new languages won't be able to serialize the 
>> descriptor?
>>
> descriptor.proto is an exception. It's allowed to be imported by proto3 
> files to support custom options. I.e., the following is explicitly allowed:
> syntax = "proto3";
> package test;
>
> *import "google/protobuf/descriptor.proto";*
>
> *extend google.protobuf.FieldOptions {*
> *  string my_field_option = 123456789;*
> *}*
>
> message TestMessage {
>   int32 value = 1 [*(my_field_option) = "Some extra option data"*];
> }
>
> However, the ability to use these descriptor info at run-time may be 
> limited (or not present) in certain languages. It depends on what API is 
> provided by the specific language. +Jon Skeet could probably say more about 
> how to use/access descriptors in C#.
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> On 9 October 2015 at 19:44, 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers <
>> prot...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>>> The decision is not to support proto2 in C# (and probably also for all 
>>> other languages that are new in v3.0.0+).
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Teddy Zhang >> > wrote:
>>>
 Will the C# implementation support proto2 message as well?
 What is the compatibility story between proto2 and proto 3? I assume 
 the wire format is compatible as long as no proto 3 exclusive features 
 are used.


 On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jon Skeet wrote:

> That looks like you're expecting a protobuf.net-style approach - to 
> which the answer is "no" and will continue to be "no".
>
> The C# support will continue to be based on generated code, but 
> there's a new code generator and runtime now in the master branch. The 
> main 
> changes from the previous code are:
>
> - proto3-only support (no proto2 at all)
> - mutable generated types rather than the Java-style builders and 
> immutable messages
>
> Jon
>
> On Monday, 3 August 2015 22:50:06 UTC+1, The Nguyen Xuan wrote:
>>
>> Does this version support object type in C# ?
>>
>> ex:
>>
>> [ProtoMember(1)]
>> public object A {get;set;}
>>
>> thank.
>>
>> Vào 11:51:01 UTC+7 Thứ Năm, ngày 11 tháng 12 năm 2014, Feng Xiao đã 
>> viết:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
>>> https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1
>>>
>>> This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf 
>>> v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and 
>>> support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
>>> php, 
>>> node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java 
>>> implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In 
>>> future releases we will add support for more programming languages and 
>>> implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha 
>>> version 
>>> also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
>>> They 
>>> are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
>>> (aka 
>>> proto2).
>>>
>>> We are currently working on the documentation of these new features 
>>> and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer 
>>> guide . 
>>> For the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other 
>>> new 
>>> features, please post your question in the discussion group.
>>>
>>> CHANGS
>>> ===
>>> Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):
>>>
>>>   General
>>>   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).
>>>
>>> When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol 
>>> Buffers
>>> language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
>>> started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version 
>>> (proto3) is
>>> introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be 
>>> supported.
>>>
>>> The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf 
>>> before
>>> pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API 
>>> platform.
>>> In proto3, the language is 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-10-09 Thread Walter Schulze
In other words C# and those new languages won't be able to serialize the
descriptor?

On 9 October 2015 at 19:44, 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers <
protobuf@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> The decision is not to support proto2 in C# (and probably also for all
> other languages that are new in v3.0.0+).
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Teddy Zhang  wrote:
>
>> Will the C# implementation support proto2 message as well?
>> What is the compatibility story between proto2 and proto 3? I assume the
>> wire format is compatible as long as no proto 3 exclusive features are used.
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jon Skeet wrote:
>>
>>> That looks like you're expecting a protobuf.net-style approach - to
>>> which the answer is "no" and will continue to be "no".
>>>
>>> The C# support will continue to be based on generated code, but there's
>>> a new code generator and runtime now in the master branch. The main changes
>>> from the previous code are:
>>>
>>> - proto3-only support (no proto2 at all)
>>> - mutable generated types rather than the Java-style builders and
>>> immutable messages
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> On Monday, 3 August 2015 22:50:06 UTC+1, The Nguyen Xuan wrote:

 Does this version support object type in C# ?

 ex:

 [ProtoMember(1)]
 public object A {get;set;}

 thank.

 Vào 11:51:01 UTC+7 Thứ Năm, ngày 11 tháng 12 năm 2014, Feng Xiao đã
 viết:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
> https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1
>
> This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
> v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
> support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php,
> node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
> implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
> future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
> implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version
> also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
> They
> are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka
> proto2).
>
> We are currently working on the documentation of these new features
> and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
> . For
> the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
> features, please post your question in the discussion group.
>
> CHANGS
> ===
> Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):
>
>   General
>   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).
>
> When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
> Buffers
> language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
> started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3)
> is
> introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
> supported.
>
> The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf
> before
> pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API
> platform.
> In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
> make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
> same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
> found in APIs.
>
> The following are the main new features in language version 3:
>
>   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
> removal
>  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
> proto3
>  significantly easier to implement with open struct
> representations,
>  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
>   2. Removal of unknown fields.
>   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
> standard
>  type called Any.
>   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
>   5. Addition of maps.
>   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation
> of time,
>  dynamic data, etc.
>   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary
> proto
>  encoding.
>
> This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for
> C++ and
> Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
> feature
> list are not implemented.
>
> A new notion "syntax" is introduced to specify whether a .proto
> file
> uses proto2 or proto3:
>
>   // foo.proto
>   syntax = "proto3";
>   message 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-10-09 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Walter Schulze 
wrote:

> In other words C# and those new languages won't be able to serialize the
> descriptor?
>
descriptor.proto is an exception. It's allowed to be imported by proto3
files to support custom options. I.e., the following is explicitly allowed:
syntax = "proto3";
package test;

*import "google/protobuf/descriptor.proto";*

*extend google.protobuf.FieldOptions {*
*  string my_field_option = 123456789;*
*}*

message TestMessage {
  int32 value = 1 [*(my_field_option) = "Some extra option data"*];
}

However, the ability to use these descriptor info at run-time may be
limited (or not present) in certain languages. It depends on what API is
provided by the specific language. +Jon Skeet could probably say more about
how to use/access descriptors in C#.




>
> On 9 October 2015 at 19:44, 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers <
> protobuf@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> The decision is not to support proto2 in C# (and probably also for all
>> other languages that are new in v3.0.0+).
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Teddy Zhang 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Will the C# implementation support proto2 message as well?
>>> What is the compatibility story between proto2 and proto 3? I assume the
>>> wire format is compatible as long as no proto 3 exclusive features are used.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 5:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jon Skeet wrote:
>>>
 That looks like you're expecting a protobuf.net-style approach - to
 which the answer is "no" and will continue to be "no".

 The C# support will continue to be based on generated code, but there's
 a new code generator and runtime now in the master branch. The main changes
 from the previous code are:

 - proto3-only support (no proto2 at all)
 - mutable generated types rather than the Java-style builders and
 immutable messages

 Jon

 On Monday, 3 August 2015 22:50:06 UTC+1, The Nguyen Xuan wrote:
>
> Does this version support object type in C# ?
>
> ex:
>
> [ProtoMember(1)]
> public object A {get;set;}
>
> thank.
>
> Vào 11:51:01 UTC+7 Thứ Năm, ngày 11 tháng 12 năm 2014, Feng Xiao đã
> viết:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
>> https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1
>>
>> This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
>> v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
>> support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php,
>> node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
>> implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
>> future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
>> implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version
>> also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
>> They
>> are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
>> (aka
>> proto2).
>>
>> We are currently working on the documentation of these new features
>> and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer
>> guide .
>> For the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other 
>> new
>> features, please post your question in the discussion group.
>>
>> CHANGS
>> ===
>> Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):
>>
>>   General
>>   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).
>>
>> When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
>> Buffers
>> language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
>> started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3)
>> is
>> introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
>> supported.
>>
>> The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf
>> before
>> pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API
>> platform.
>> In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and
>>  to
>> make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At
>> the
>> same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
>> found in APIs.
>>
>> The following are the main new features in language version 3:
>>
>>   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
>> removal
>>  of required fields, and removal of default values. This
>> makes proto3
>>  significantly easier to implement with open struct
>> representations,
>>  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
>>   2. Removal of 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-06-15 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Darin Gordon dar...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Feng

 What would you say is a reasonable ETA for the protobuf 3 full release?
 Are you going through a series of RC's first?

We will have a series of alpha releases followed by a series of betas. The
3 full release may be in Q4 this year.





 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at 11:51:01 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for C++
 and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a
 long
 time.

   * Added support for map fields (implemented in C++/Java for both proto2
 and
 proto3).

 Map fields can be declared using the following syntax:

   message Foo {
 mapstring, string values = 1;
   }

 Data of a map field will be stored in memory as an unordered map and
 it
 can be accessed through generated accessors.

   C++
   * Added arena allocation support (for both proto2 and proto3).

 Profiling shows memory allocation and deallocation constitutes a
 significant
 fraction of CPU-time spent in protobuf code and arena allocation is a
 technique introduced to reduce this cost. With arena allocation, new
 objects will be allocated from a large piece of preallocated memory
 and
 deallocation of these objects is almost free. Early adoption shows
 20% to
 50% improvement in some Google binaries.

 To enable arena support, add the following option to your .proto file:

   option cc_enable_arenas = true;

 Protocol compiler will generate additional code to make the 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-05-12 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Mikhail Nikonov 
michael.n.niko...@gmail.com wrote:

 First of all, thanks for the great work; I've been using protobufs for a
 while, and it's good to see them evolving.

 One question - if map field is internally emulated by repeated field type,
 is it packed (e.g. [packed=true]) by default, and is there a way to pack it?

No. Only repeated primitive fields can be packed but map fields are
represented as repeated message fields on the wire.


 As a related question, was there a thought about making repeated fields
 packed by default, now that .proto language is changing in
 backward-incompatible manner?

Yes, we decided to make repeated primitive fields always packed in proto3.
It will be updated soon.


  --
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-04-30 Thread Alfred Kwan
Nikolay, the has_foo being private is actually intentional, see this closed 
issue https://github.com/google/protobuf/issues/234.

Alfred

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 6:36:59 PM UTC-4, Nikolay Mladenov wrote:

 I am also evaluating proto2 vs proto3 and even though it seems proto3 
 should be the way to go I really miss the has_** functionality in proto3.

 It seems the following proto pattern may be a workaround:

 message M{
oneof optional_value{
  int32 value = 1;
}
 }

 It does generate value(), set_value(), clear_value() and has_value() 
 methods (C++) but unfortunately the has_value is private.
 Is there a reason such a useful and short method is declared private (it 
 implementation only uses public functionality as well)



 On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-5, Alfred Kwan wrote:

 Thanks for pointing me to oneof. I gave it a try and I have two 
 questions:
 1) I see the has_() being generated for all the fields inside oneof. Is 
 this kind of has_() function here to stay throughout subsequent V3 releases?
 2) Since oneof does not allow a repeated field in both V2/3, is there 
 pro/cons in case I create one extra layer of structure i.e.:
 message manyMsg{ // workaround: wrap the repeating message
repeated oneMsg = 1;
 }
 message unionMsg{
oneof testOneof{
   manyMsg msg = 1; // doesn't allow repeated
   uint32 foo = 2;
}
 }



 On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 11:01:04 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The union types are obsoleted by oneof:
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof

 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alfred Kwan alfr...@gmail.com wrote:

 To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly 
 optional field, which means additional maintenance is now required, e.g. 
 matching naming scheme for the pool together with the optional struct, 
 also 
 should we group all booleans together or should they sit right next to the 
 to corresponding optional structures...

 With the uncertainty of how any replaces extensions plus the 
 removal of has_boo(), it seems like new adopters (I'm one of them) should 
 pick V2 over 3.0.

 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com wrote:

 Feng, 

 Version 3 removes presence logic. 
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular 
 message fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with 
 proto3 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped 
 features. It's believed that most users don't use the field presence 
 logic 
 much and for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy 
 workaround.
  


 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf 
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and 
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
 php, 
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java 
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In 
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and 
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha 
 version 
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They 
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
 (aka 
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features 
 and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer 
 guide https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. 
 For the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other 
 new 
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol 
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version 
 (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be 
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf 
 before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API 
 platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and 
  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At 
 the
 same time a few features are added to better support common 
 idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-04-30 Thread Nikolay Mladenov
I understand it was an intentional design decision, I just fail to
understand the reasoning for it.
I see this statement.

In proto3, this is an intentional design decision: has_...() methods go
away except for message fields. For oneofs, the idiomatic API pattern is to
use get_oneof_case() to check which field in the oneof is set.

It is obvious for me that regular non-message fields should not have has_..
in proto3.

but for oneof has_... makes perfect sense.
It is still defined because it is convenient for the internal code.

But it is also convenient for other uses, so hiding it is superficial.

I now have to redefine all such method for my needs and they have exactly
the same definitions as the private members,
but are just a hassle to write/update and use






On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Alfred Kwan alfred...@gmail.com wrote:

 Nikolay, the has_foo being private is actually intentional, see this closed
 issue https://github.com/google/protobuf/issues/234.

 Alfred


 On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 6:36:59 PM UTC-4, Nikolay Mladenov wrote:

 I am also evaluating proto2 vs proto3 and even though it seems proto3
 should be the way to go I really miss the has_** functionality in proto3.

 It seems the following proto pattern may be a workaround:

 message M{
oneof optional_value{
  int32 value = 1;
}
 }

 It does generate value(), set_value(), clear_value() and has_value()
 methods (C++) but unfortunately the has_value is private.
 Is there a reason such a useful and short method is declared private (it
 implementation only uses public functionality as well)



 On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-5, Alfred Kwan wrote:

 Thanks for pointing me to oneof. I gave it a try and I have two
 questions:
 1) I see the has_() being generated for all the fields inside oneof. Is
 this kind of has_() function here to stay throughout subsequent V3 releases?
 2) Since oneof does not allow a repeated field in both V2/3, is there
 pro/cons in case I create one extra layer of structure i.e.:
 message manyMsg{ // workaround: wrap the repeating message
repeated oneMsg = 1;
 }
 message unionMsg{
oneof testOneof{
   manyMsg msg = 1; // doesn't allow repeated
   uint32 foo = 2;
}
 }



 On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 11:01:04 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The union types are obsoleted by oneof:
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof

 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alfred Kwan alfr...@gmail.com wrote:

 To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly
 optional field, which means additional maintenance is now required, e.g.
 matching naming scheme for the pool together with the optional struct, 
 also
 should we group all booleans together or should they sit right next to the
 to corresponding optional structures...

 With the uncertainty of how any replaces extensions plus the
 removal of has_boo(), it seems like new adopters (I'm one of them) should
 pick V2 over 3.0.

 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com wrote:

 Feng,

 Version 3 removes presence logic.
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular
 message fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with
 proto3 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped
 features. It's believed that most users don't use the field presence 
 logic
 much and for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy
 workaround.



 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
 php,
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha 
 version
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
 (aka
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features
 and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer
 guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview.
 For the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other 
 new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-04-30 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Nikolay Mladenov 
nikolay.mlade...@gmail.com wrote:

 I understand it was an intentional design decision, I just fail to
 understand the reasoning for it.
 I see this statement.

 In proto3, this is an intentional design decision: has_...() methods
 go away except for message fields. For oneofs, the idiomatic API pattern is
 to use get_oneof_case() to check which field in the oneof is set.

 It is obvious for me that regular non-message fields should not have
 has_.. in proto3.

 but for oneof has_... makes perfect sense.
 It is still defined because it is convenient for the internal code.

 But it is also convenient for other uses, so hiding it is superficial.

 I now have to redefine all such method for my needs and they have exactly
 the same definitions as the private members,
 but are just a hassle to write/update and use

The intention is to make the public API simpler and consistent. As there is
already a way to check for field presence for oneof fields, we decide to
not provide has_ methods.








 On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Alfred Kwan alfred...@gmail.com wrote:

 Nikolay, the has_foo being private is actually intentional, see this closed
 issue https://github.com/google/protobuf/issues/234.

 Alfred


 On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 6:36:59 PM UTC-4, Nikolay Mladenov wrote:

 I am also evaluating proto2 vs proto3 and even though it seems proto3
 should be the way to go I really miss the has_** functionality in proto3.

 It seems the following proto pattern may be a workaround:

 message M{
oneof optional_value{
  int32 value = 1;
}
 }

 It does generate value(), set_value(), clear_value() and has_value()
 methods (C++) but unfortunately the has_value is private.
 Is there a reason such a useful and short method is declared private (it
 implementation only uses public functionality as well)



 On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-5, Alfred Kwan wrote:

 Thanks for pointing me to oneof. I gave it a try and I have two
 questions:
 1) I see the has_() being generated for all the fields inside oneof. Is
 this kind of has_() function here to stay throughout subsequent V3 
 releases?
 2) Since oneof does not allow a repeated field in both V2/3, is there
 pro/cons in case I create one extra layer of structure i.e.:
 message manyMsg{ // workaround: wrap the repeating message
repeated oneMsg = 1;
 }
 message unionMsg{
oneof testOneof{
   manyMsg msg = 1; // doesn't allow repeated
   uint32 foo = 2;
}
 }



 On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 11:01:04 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The union types are obsoleted by oneof:
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof

 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alfred Kwan alfr...@gmail.com wrote:

 To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly
 optional field, which means additional maintenance is now required, e.g.
 matching naming scheme for the pool together with the optional struct, 
 also
 should we group all booleans together or should they sit right next to 
 the
 to corresponding optional structures...

 With the uncertainty of how any replaces extensions plus the
 removal of has_boo(), it seems like new adopters (I'm one of them) should
 pick V2 over 3.0.

 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com wrote:

 Feng,

 Version 3 removes presence logic.
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular
 message fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with
 proto3 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped
 features. It's believed that most users don't use the field presence 
 logic
 much and for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy
 workaround.



 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
 php,
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha 
 version
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena 
 allocation. They
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
 (aka
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new
 features and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf
 developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview.
 For the time being 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-04-29 Thread Nikolay Mladenov
I am also evaluating proto2 vs proto3 and even though it seems proto3 
should be the way to go I really miss the has_** functionality in proto3.

It seems the following proto pattern may be a workaround:

message M{
   oneof optional_value{
 int32 value = 1;
   }
}

It does generate value(), set_value(), clear_value() and has_value() 
methods (C++) but unfortunately the has_value is private.
Is there a reason such a useful and short method is declared private (it 
implementation only uses public functionality as well)



On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-5, Alfred Kwan wrote:

 Thanks for pointing me to oneof. I gave it a try and I have two 
 questions:
 1) I see the has_() being generated for all the fields inside oneof. Is 
 this kind of has_() function here to stay throughout subsequent V3 releases?
 2) Since oneof does not allow a repeated field in both V2/3, is there 
 pro/cons in case I create one extra layer of structure i.e.:
 message manyMsg{ // workaround: wrap the repeating message
repeated oneMsg = 1;
 }
 message unionMsg{
oneof testOneof{
   manyMsg msg = 1; // doesn't allow repeated
   uint32 foo = 2;
}
 }



 On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 11:01:04 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The union types are obsoleted by oneof:
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof

 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alfred Kwan alfr...@gmail.com wrote:

 To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly 
 optional field, which means additional maintenance is now required, e.g. 
 matching naming scheme for the pool together with the optional struct, also 
 should we group all booleans together or should they sit right next to the 
 to corresponding optional structures...

 With the uncertainty of how any replaces extensions plus the removal 
 of has_boo(), it seems like new adopters (I'm one of them) should pick V2 
 over 3.0.

 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com wrote:

 Feng, 

 Version 3 removes presence logic. 
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular message 
 fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with proto3 
 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped 
 features. 
 It's believed that most users don't use the field presence logic much and 
 for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy workaround.
  


 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf 
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and 
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
 php, 
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java 
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In 
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and 
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha 
 version 
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They 
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
 (aka 
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features 
 and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer 
 guide https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. 
 For the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other 
 new 
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol 
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) 
 is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be 
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf 
 before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API 
 platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and 
  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At 
 the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This 
 makes proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct 
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-04-29 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 6:21 AM, Nikolay Mladenov 
nikolay.mlade...@gmail.com wrote:

 I am also evaluating proto2 vs proto3 and even though it seems proto3
 should be the way to go I really miss the has_** functionality in proto3.

 It seems the following proto pattern may be a workaround:

 message M{
oneof optional_value{
  int32 value = 1;
}
 }

 It does generate value(), set_value(), clear_value() and has_value()
 methods (C++) but unfortunately the has_value is private.
 Is there a reason such a useful and short method is declared private (it
 implementation only uses public functionality as well)

You can use optoinal_value_case() to check which oneof is set.






 On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:55:03 PM UTC-5, Alfred Kwan wrote:

 Thanks for pointing me to oneof. I gave it a try and I have two
 questions:
 1) I see the has_() being generated for all the fields inside oneof. Is
 this kind of has_() function here to stay throughout subsequent V3 releases?
 2) Since oneof does not allow a repeated field in both V2/3, is there
 pro/cons in case I create one extra layer of structure i.e.:
 message manyMsg{ // workaround: wrap the repeating message
repeated oneMsg = 1;
 }
 message unionMsg{
oneof testOneof{
   manyMsg msg = 1; // doesn't allow repeated
   uint32 foo = 2;
}
 }



 On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 11:01:04 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The union types are obsoleted by oneof:
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof

 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alfred Kwan alfr...@gmail.com wrote:

 To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly
 optional field, which means additional maintenance is now required, e.g.
 matching naming scheme for the pool together with the optional struct, also
 should we group all booleans together or should they sit right next to the
 to corresponding optional structures...

 With the uncertainty of how any replaces extensions plus the
 removal of has_boo(), it seems like new adopters (I'm one of them) should
 pick V2 over 3.0.

 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com wrote:

 Feng,

 Version 3 removes presence logic.
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular
 message fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with
 proto3 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped
 features. It's believed that most users don't use the field presence logic
 much and for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy
 workaround.



 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
 php,
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha 
 version
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
 (aka
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features
 and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer
 guide https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview.
 For the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other 
 new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version
 (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf
 before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API
 platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and
  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At
 the
 same time a few features are added to better support common
 idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This
 makes proto3
  significantly easier to 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-03-30 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Kostiantyn Shchepanovskyi 
schepanov...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new standard
 type called Any.


 Extensions are used for custom options definition in proto2.

 import google/protobuf/descriptor.proto;

 extend google.protobuf.MessageOptions {
   optional string my_option = 51234;
 }

 message MyMessage {
   option (my_option) = Hello world!;
 }

 How it will look in proto3?

Extensions to these options are explicitly allowed in proto3.



  --
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-03-10 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Kevin Baker kba...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 Thanks for all your work with protobuf. I am excited about the changes
 with proto3 that will reduce errors (no forgetting to set has_* in nanopb,
 yay!) and will make mapping into new languages much simpler, helping our
 interop case a lot.

 My question is: We are currently using protobuf pretty extensively and it
 looks like we will not be impacted by any changes in proto3 in our proto
 files (all fields being present, removal of required, default values, etc.)
 Does this mean our existing proto2 applications are compatible on-the-wire
 with proto3?

Yes.


 How upwards-compatible is proto3 with proto2?

Proto3 uses the same wire-format as proto2. A proto2 application should be
able to parse the output of a proto3 server using the same .proto
definition (only differing in syntax version). It's also true vice versa.



 Of course I will test this as well but I was wondering if there are any
 planned breakages of the wire format or if they will be compatibly phased
 in.

There is no planned wire-format changes for proto3.



 Thanks,
 Kevin

 On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 10:04:30 PM UTC-6, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Swigart jswi...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't understand. If a message is a simple struct then the generated
 wrapper code would populate it with the default as defined by the proto it
 was compiled with wouldn't it? Are you suggesting that the implementation
 on different platforms would lack the wrapper objects generated by protobuf?

 There may be languages whose protobuf implementation would not be able to
 efficiently support these features. Note that these decisions are not made
 based on the current languages that we support, but based on that we are
 going to support a much wider range of languages.


 As long as you have that you have the default value. This rationale
 doesn't make sense.

 --
 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+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-03-10 Thread Kevin Baker
That's great news, thanks!!! Looking forward to proto3!

Kevin

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:



 On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Kevin Baker kba...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 Thanks for all your work with protobuf. I am excited about the changes
 with proto3 that will reduce errors (no forgetting to set has_* in nanopb,
 yay!) and will make mapping into new languages much simpler, helping our
 interop case a lot.

 My question is: We are currently using protobuf pretty extensively and it
 looks like we will not be impacted by any changes in proto3 in our proto
 files (all fields being present, removal of required, default values, etc.)
 Does this mean our existing proto2 applications are compatible on-the-wire
 with proto3?

 Yes.


 How upwards-compatible is proto3 with proto2?

 Proto3 uses the same wire-format as proto2. A proto2 application should be
 able to parse the output of a proto3 server using the same .proto
 definition (only differing in syntax version). It's also true vice versa.



 Of course I will test this as well but I was wondering if there are any
 planned breakages of the wire format or if they will be compatibly phased
 in.

 There is no planned wire-format changes for proto3.



 Thanks,
 Kevin

 On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 10:04:30 PM UTC-6, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Swigart jswi...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I don't understand. If a message is a simple struct then the generated
 wrapper code would populate it with the default as defined by the proto it
 was compiled with wouldn't it? Are you suggesting that the implementation
 on different platforms would lack the wrapper objects generated by 
 protobuf?

 There may be languages whose protobuf implementation would not be able
 to efficiently support these features. Note that these decisions are not
 made based on the current languages that we support, but based on that we
 are going to support a much wider range of languages.


 As long as you have that you have the default value. This rationale
 doesn't make sense.

 --
 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+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-03-09 Thread Kevin Baker
Hi,

Thanks for all your work with protobuf. I am excited about the changes with 
proto3 that will reduce errors (no forgetting to set has_* in nanopb, yay!) 
and will make mapping into new languages much simpler, helping our interop 
case a lot.

My question is: We are currently using protobuf pretty extensively and it 
looks like we will not be impacted by any changes in proto3 in our proto 
files (all fields being present, removal of required, default values, etc.) 
Does this mean our existing proto2 applications are compatible on-the-wire 
with proto3? How upwards-compatible is proto3 with proto2?

Of course I will test this as well but I was wondering if there are any 
planned breakages of the wire format or if they will be compatibly phased 
in.

Thanks,
Kevin

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 10:04:30 PM UTC-6, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Swigart jswi...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

 I don't understand. If a message is a simple struct then the generated 
 wrapper code would populate it with the default as defined by the proto it 
 was compiled with wouldn't it? Are you suggesting that the implementation 
 on different platforms would lack the wrapper objects generated by protobuf?

 There may be languages whose protobuf implementation would not be able to 
 efficiently support these features. Note that these decisions are not made 
 based on the current languages that we support, but based on that we are 
 going to support a much wider range of languages.
  

 As long as you have that you have the default value. This rationale 
 doesn't make sense.

 --
 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+u...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-02-11 Thread Alfred Kwan
Thanks for pointing me to oneof. I gave it a try and I have two questions:
1) I see the has_() being generated for all the fields inside oneof. Is 
this kind of has_() function here to stay throughout subsequent V3 releases?
2) Since oneof does not allow a repeated field in both V2/3, is there 
pro/cons in case I create one extra layer of structure i.e.:
message manyMsg{ // workaround: wrap the repeating message
   repeated oneMsg = 1;
}
message unionMsg{
   oneof testOneof{
  manyMsg msg = 1; // doesn't allow repeated
  uint32 foo = 2;
   }
}



On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 11:01:04 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The union types are obsoleted by oneof:
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof

 On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alfred Kwan alfr...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

 To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly 
 optional field, which means additional maintenance is now required, e.g. 
 matching naming scheme for the pool together with the optional struct, also 
 should we group all booleans together or should they sit right next to the 
 to corresponding optional structures...

 With the uncertainty of how any replaces extensions plus the removal 
 of has_boo(), it seems like new adopters (I'm one of them) should pick V2 
 over 3.0.

 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com wrote:

 Feng, 

 Version 3 removes presence logic. 
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular message 
 fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with proto3 
 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped features. 
 It's believed that most users don't use the field presence logic much and 
 for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy workaround.
  


 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf 
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and 
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, 
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java 
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In 
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and 
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version 
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They 
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
 (aka 
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features 
 and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide 
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For 
 the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new 
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol 
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) 
 is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be 
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf 
 before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API 
 platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes 
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct 
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new 
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation 
 of time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary 
 proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for 
 C++ and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above 
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-02-08 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
The union types are obsoleted by oneof:
https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/proto#oneof

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Alfred Kwan alfred...@gmail.com wrote:

 To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly
 optional field, which means additional maintenance is now required, e.g.
 matching naming scheme for the pool together with the optional struct, also
 should we group all booleans together or should they sit right next to the
 to corresponding optional structures...

 With the uncertainty of how any replaces extensions plus the removal
 of has_boo(), it seems like new adopters (I'm one of them) should pick V2
 over 3.0.

 On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com wrote:

 Feng,

 Version 3 removes presence logic.
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular message
 fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with proto3
 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped features.
 It's believed that most users don't use the field presence logic much and
 for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy workaround.



 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For
 the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation
 of time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary
 proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for
 C++ and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error
 in a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However,
 we do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for
 a long
 time.

   * Added support for map fields (implemented in C++/Java for both
 proto2 and
 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-02-08 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Jeremy Swigart jswig...@gmail.com wrote:

 I don't understand. If a message is a simple struct then the generated
 wrapper code would populate it with the default as defined by the proto it
 was compiled with wouldn't it? Are you suggesting that the implementation
 on different platforms would lack the wrapper objects generated by protobuf?

There may be languages whose protobuf implementation would not be able to
efficiently support these features. Note that these decisions are not made
based on the current languages that we support, but based on that we are
going to support a much wider range of languages.


 As long as you have that you have the default value. This rationale
 doesn't make sense.

 --
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-02-08 Thread Alfred Kwan
To implement the has_boo() in 3.0 implies one boolean per each truly 
optional field, which means additional maintenance is now required, e.g. 
matching naming scheme for the pool together with the optional struct, also 
should we group all booleans together or should they sit right next to the 
to corresponding optional structures...

With the uncertainty of how any replaces extensions plus the removal of 
has_boo(), it seems like new adopters (I'm one of them) should pick V2 over 
3.0.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com javascript: 
 wrote:

 Feng, 

 Version 3 removes presence logic. 
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular message 
 fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with proto3 
 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped features. 
 It's believed that most users don't use the field presence logic much and 
 for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy workaround.
  


 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0, 
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a 
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js, 
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with 
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will 
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3 
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new 
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both 
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and 
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide 
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the 
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new 
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol 
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be 
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes 
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct 
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new 
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of 
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary 
 proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for 
 C++ and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above 
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and 
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in 
 a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we 
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from 
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a 
 long
 time.

   * Added support for map fields (implemented in C++/Java for both 
 proto2 and
 proto3).

 Map fields can be declared using the following syntax:

   message Foo {
 mapstring, string values = 1;
   

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-02-08 Thread Alfred Kwan
It seems to be an annoyance now to implement the recommended union types 
https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/techniques#union with 
the 3.0 because has_foo() is not longer supported.
Instead of one bool for each possible message within the union, what do 
you think about adding a standalone enum (to tell what data type is 
set/populated) along with the union instead?

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:10:39 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:



 On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee lee...@gmail.com javascript: 
 wrote:

 Feng, 

 Version 3 removes presence logic. 
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

 This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular message 
 fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with proto3 
 you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped features. 
 It's believed that most users don't use the field presence logic much and 
 for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy workaround.
  


 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0, 
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a 
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js, 
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with 
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will 
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3 
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new 
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both 
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and 
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide 
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the 
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new 
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol 
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be 
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes 
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct 
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new 
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of 
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary 
 proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for 
 C++ and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above 
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and 
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in 
 a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we 
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from 
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a 
 long
 time.

   * Added support for map fields (implemented in C++/Java for both 
 proto2 and
 proto3).

 Map fields can be declared using the following syntax:

   message Foo {
 mapstring, string values = 1;
   }

 Data of a map field will be stored in memory as an unordered map and 
 it
 can be accessed 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-02-06 Thread Jeremy Swigart
I don't understand. If a message is a simple struct then the generated wrapper 
code would populate it with the default as defined by the proto it was compiled 
with wouldn't it? Are you suggesting that the implementation on different 
platforms would lack the wrapper objects generated by protobuf? As long as you 
have that you have the default value. This rationale doesn't make sense. 

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-28 Thread Walter Schulze
I have declared quite a few file, message, field, etc. extensions on the
descriptor.
https://github.com/gogo/protobuf/blob/master/gogoproto/gogo.proto
These extensions are used to modify the code that is generated.

This results in a user being able to create a proto file like this
https://github.com/gogo/protobuf/blob/master/test/example/example.proto
There are file, field and message extensions used in the proto, which
protoc can parse.
Can I use this style in proto3 syntax?

I guess I should be able to if the descriptor does not offer me any other
way to do this, like Any?

On 27 January 2015 at 20:33, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:



 On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 5:42:34 AM Walter Schulze awalterschu...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Will the extensions in the descriptor.proto also be changed to Any types?

 No. That will continue to be supported. descriptor.proto is the only proto
 that will allow extensions in proto3.



 On Thursday, 11 December 2014 06:51:01 UTC+2, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary
 proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for
 C++ and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in
 a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a
 long
 time.

   * Added support for map fields (implemented in C++/Java for both
 proto2 and
 proto3).

 Map fields can be declared using the following syntax:

   message Foo {
 mapstring, string values = 1;
   }

 Data of a map field will be stored in memory as an unordered map and
 it
 can be accessed through generated accessors.

   C++
   * Added arena allocation support (for both proto2 and proto3).

 Profiling 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-28 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 12:06:21 PM Troy Lee leet...@gmail.com wrote:

 Feng,

 Version 3 removes presence logic.
 How do we exam whether a field is exist or not?

This is no possible for singular primitive fields. For singular message
fields, the has methods will still be generated. Basically with proto3
you'll need to write your code without depending on these dropped features.
It's believed that most users don't use the field presence logic much and
for those who need this feature adding a bool field is an easy workaround.



 Thanks,
 troylee

 Feng Xiao於 2014年12月11日星期四 UTC+8下午12時51分01秒寫道:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for C++
 and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a
 long
 time.

   * Added support for map fields (implemented in C++/Java for both proto2
 and
 proto3).

 Map fields can be declared using the following syntax:

   message Foo {
 mapstring, string values = 1;
   }

 Data of a map field will be stored in memory as an unordered map and
 it
 can be accessed through generated accessors.

   C++
   * Added arena allocation support (for both proto2 and proto3).

 Profiling shows memory allocation and deallocation constitutes a
 significant
 fraction of CPU-time spent in protobuf code and arena allocation is a
 technique introduced to reduce this cost. With arena allocation, new
 objects will be allocated from a large piece of preallocated memory
 and
 deallocation of these objects is almost free. Early adoption shows
 20% to
 50% improvement in 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-27 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 5:42:34 AM Walter Schulze awalterschu...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Will the extensions in the descriptor.proto also be changed to Any types?

No. That will continue to be supported. descriptor.proto is the only proto
that will allow extensions in proto3.



 On Thursday, 11 December 2014 06:51:01 UTC+2, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for C++
 and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a
 long
 time.

   * Added support for map fields (implemented in C++/Java for both proto2
 and
 proto3).

 Map fields can be declared using the following syntax:

   message Foo {
 mapstring, string values = 1;
   }

 Data of a map field will be stored in memory as an unordered map and
 it
 can be accessed through generated accessors.

   C++
   * Added arena allocation support (for both proto2 and proto3).

 Profiling shows memory allocation and deallocation constitutes a
 significant
 fraction of CPU-time spent in protobuf code and arena allocation is a
 technique introduced to reduce this cost. With arena allocation, new
 objects will be allocated from a large piece of preallocated memory
 and
 deallocation of these objects is almost free. Early adoption shows
 20% to
 50% improvement in some Google binaries.

 To enable arena support, add the following option to your .proto file:

   option cc_enable_arenas = true;

 Protocol compiler will generate additional code to make the generated
 message classes work with arenas. This does 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-26 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Mon Jan 26 2015 at 5:38:22 PM Ryan Gaudon r...@gaudon.ca wrote:

 As a new user it's encouraged to begin implementation with PB3.0+ opposed
 to 2.6. With that being said, since I'm beginning integration now and
 replacing XStream with this, where would you suggest I start? There is very
 little / no documentation available at this time, and there hasn't been an
 update since.

Most of the documentation on our developer guide site still applies to
proto3. We don't have any documentation for proto3 specific features though.



 Specifically I'm curious how to go about tackling serialization of objects
 that inherit properties and methods from a parent class. IIRC, this was
 handled with extensions and .setExtension() in older version, however I was
 unable to figure out how to use the new 'any' type and the compiler threw
 errors when attempting to work with it blindly.

Sorry, but Any is not added in this alpha version. In proto3, Any will
be a pre-defined message type. Its definition looks like this:
package google.protobuf;
message Any {
  string type_url = 1;
  bytes value = 2;
}
You could define such a message yourself and use it as a temporary
solution. In the next alpha version we'll provide these types and utility
functions to work with an Any message.



 Is there anything you have available to get those started off with
 protobuf 3?



 On Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 1:21:01 AM UTC-3:30, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for C++
 and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a
 long
 time.

   

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-22 Thread gtw . gtw4c

As a new user, we still have need (C++ target) for default values, as well 
as  required fields (e.g., message headers for embedded target).

1) It appears that you are completely removing the default/required 
capability from the proto3 language.  Is this correct ?
2) Will the proto2 language be maintained going forward ?  If so, then a 
simple generation addition may work for the envisioned application.  This 
is to generate non-static default message content so that the copy operator 
works simply, enabling applications to populate
changed fields with minimal coding effort.  I looked into this 
possibility before I saw this forum thread.

Thank you for your effort and reply.

Gilbert T Williams.


On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 2:33:59 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The proto3 design discussion has lasted for more than half a year and all 
 of them happened as an internal process. We have a lot of design docs, 
 email exchanges and weekly design meetings, but they are not available for 
 public consumption. Currently we are preparing public documentations for 
 proto3 and it's targeted to be publicized late this quarter.

 On Wed Jan 21 2015 at 6:00:35 AM Sumit Kumar kumar...@hotmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

 Specially makes difficult for adoption in financial applications, the 
 has_field was one of the key reasons to migrate over to protofuf.

 Financial applications need differentiation in-between 0 value set and 
 not set. Eg: Limit order with 0 price is valid but with no price set is 
 invalid. Likewise market order with no price set is valid and with any 
 other price set is invalid (including the 0 value). And there are many 
 other cases, but anyway if the decision is made then not much value 
 discussing it.

 Regards,
 Sumit Kumar

 On 17 Jan 2015, at 10:52 am, V.B. vidalb...@gmail.com javascript: 
 wrote:

 I suppose what I'm really wondering is:
 a) How does it simplify the language implementations exactly?
 b) Why was that not the case for *non*-primitives, which still have 
 presence logic?


 On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 6:39:56 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The reason for dropping field presence is more of the same with dropping 
 default values. Basically we want to simplify protobuf and make it easier 
 to implement efficiently in more languages. We are preparing the proto3 
 documentation and will share more information about the trade-offs we have 
 made.
 On Fri Jan 16 2015 at 12:17:25 PM V.B. vidalb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can I ask for more details about why presence logic was removed (e.g. 
 hasFoo() ) for primitives? This has been a very useful feature for us.


   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes 
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct 
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.

  -- 
 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+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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+u...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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+u...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-22 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 4:53:53 PM gtw.gt...@gmail.com wrote:


 As a new user, we still have need (C++ target) for default values, as well
 as  required fields (e.g., message headers for embedded target).

 1) It appears that you are completely removing the default/required
 capability from the proto3 language.  Is this correct ?

Yes.


 2) Will the proto2 language be maintained going forward ?

Yes. Proto2 will continue to be supported for C++/Java/Python. The new
languages that we are adding may only support proto3 though.


 If so, then a simple generation addition may work for the envisioned
 application.  This is to generate non-static default message content so
 that the copy operator works simply, enabling applications to populate
 changed fields with minimal coding effort.  I looked into this
 possibility before I saw this forum thread.

 Thank you for your effort and reply.

 Gilbert T Williams.



 On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 2:33:59 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The proto3 design discussion has lasted for more than half a year and all
 of them happened as an internal process. We have a lot of design docs,
 email exchanges and weekly design meetings, but they are not available for
 public consumption. Currently we are preparing public documentations for
 proto3 and it's targeted to be publicized late this quarter.

 On Wed Jan 21 2015 at 6:00:35 AM Sumit Kumar kumar...@hotmail.com
 wrote:

 Specially makes difficult for adoption in financial applications, the
 has_field was one of the key reasons to migrate over to protofuf.

 Financial applications need differentiation in-between 0 value set and
 not set. Eg: Limit order with 0 price is valid but with no price set is
 invalid. Likewise market order with no price set is valid and with any
 other price set is invalid (including the 0 value). And there are many
 other cases, but anyway if the decision is made then not much value
 discussing it.

 Regards,
 Sumit Kumar


 On 17 Jan 2015, at 10:52 am, V.B. vidalb...@gmail.com wrote:

 I suppose what I'm really wondering is:
 a) How does it simplify the language implementations exactly?
 b) Why was that not the case for *non*-primitives, which still have
 presence logic?


 On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 6:39:56 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The reason for dropping field presence is more of the same with
 dropping default values. Basically we want to simplify protobuf and make it
 easier to implement efficiently in more languages. We are preparing the
 proto3 documentation and will share more information about the trade-offs
 we have made.
 On Fri Jan 16 2015 at 12:17:25 PM V.B. vidalb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can I ask for more details about why presence logic was removed (e.g.
 hasFoo() ) for primitives? This has been a very useful feature for us.


   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This
 makes proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.

  --
 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+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-21 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
The proto3 design discussion has lasted for more than half a year and all
of them happened as an internal process. We have a lot of design docs,
email exchanges and weekly design meetings, but they are not available for
public consumption. Currently we are preparing public documentations for
proto3 and it's targeted to be publicized late this quarter.

On Wed Jan 21 2015 at 6:00:35 AM Sumit Kumar kumar.su...@hotmail.com
wrote:

 Specially makes difficult for adoption in financial applications, the
 has_field was one of the key reasons to migrate over to protofuf.

 Financial applications need differentiation in-between 0 value set and not
 set. Eg: Limit order with 0 price is valid but with no price set is
 invalid. Likewise market order with no price set is valid and with any
 other price set is invalid (including the 0 value). And there are many
 other cases, but anyway if the decision is made then not much value
 discussing it.

 Regards,
 Sumit Kumar

 On 17 Jan 2015, at 10:52 am, V.B. vidalborro...@gmail.com wrote:

 I suppose what I'm really wondering is:
 a) How does it simplify the language implementations exactly?
 b) Why was that not the case for *non*-primitives, which still have
 presence logic?


 On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 6:39:56 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The reason for dropping field presence is more of the same with dropping
 default values. Basically we want to simplify protobuf and make it easier
 to implement efficiently in more languages. We are preparing the proto3
 documentation and will share more information about the trade-offs we have
 made.
 On Fri Jan 16 2015 at 12:17:25 PM V.B. vidalb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can I ask for more details about why presence logic was removed (e.g.
 hasFoo() ) for primitives? This has been a very useful feature for us.


   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.

  --
 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+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-21 Thread Sumit Kumar
Which forum was this discussed (dropping of default) ? May be reading it would 
give some insights into the details.

Regards,
Sumit Kumar

 On 13 Jan 2015, at 2:40 pm, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Would it be possible to re-introduce this feature in a subsequent release? It 
 seems like you are still using it under-the-hood. And because of the benefits 
 I mentioned above, I strongly feel that it will only help the community. 
 
 Best,
 
 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:
 +liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is dropped from 
 proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.
 
 Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of people 
 for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this forum 
 though...
 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com wrote:
 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?
 
 
 
 
 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish wrote:
 Hey guys,
 
 Thanks for all the hard work!
 
 I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for default 
 values. Fields which are set to their default values are not serialized. I 
 noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  this condition 
 still holds true. But the default values used are the standard ones (0 for 
 int64/int32 etc) and cannot be specified in the .proto file. In some of my 
 code, I had reasons to use non-zero default values (-1 for some integers, 
 1024 for some others, 3.14 for some doubles etc). Using the old protocol 
 buffers, this was trivial to implement. This was a great feature as we 
 could save atleast 2 bytes for every untouched field (which comes in 
 handy when we persist the data :-)).
 
 Is there any way we can retain specification of default values in the 
 .proto files and using them in the generated encoders/decoders?
 
 Thanks very much!
 
 Looking forward to the 3.0 release!
 
 Best,
 Arjun Satish
 
 
 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:51:01 PM UTC-8, Feng Xiao wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1
 
 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0, 
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a 
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js, 
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation 
 with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases 
 we will add support for more programming languages and implement the full 
 proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two 
 other new features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented 
 for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).
 
 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and 
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide. For 
 the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new 
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.
 
 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):
 
   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).
 
 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol 
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be 
 supported.
 
 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.
 
 The following are the main new features in language version 3:
 
   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes 
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct 
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new 
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of 
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary proto
  encoding.
 
 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for C++ 
 and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above 
 feature
 list are not implemented.
 
 A new 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-21 Thread Sumit Kumar
Specially makes difficult for adoption in financial applications, the has_field 
was one of the key reasons to migrate over to protofuf.

Financial applications need differentiation in-between 0 value set and not set. 
Eg: Limit order with 0 price is valid but with no price set is invalid. 
Likewise market order with no price set is valid and with any other price set 
is invalid (including the 0 value). And there are many other cases, but anyway 
if the decision is made then not much value discussing it.

Regards,
Sumit Kumar

 On 17 Jan 2015, at 10:52 am, V.B. vidalborro...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I suppose what I'm really wondering is:
 a) How does it simplify the language implementations exactly?
 b) Why was that not the case for non-primitives, which still have presence 
 logic?
 
 
 On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 6:39:56 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:
 The reason for dropping field presence is more of the same with dropping 
 default values. Basically we want to simplify protobuf and make it easier to 
 implement efficiently in more languages. We are preparing the proto3 
 documentation and will share more information about the trade-offs we have 
 made.
 On Fri Jan 16 2015 at 12:17:25 PM V.B. vidalb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Can I ask for more details about why presence logic was removed (e.g. 
 hasFoo() ) for primitives? This has been a very useful feature for us.
 
 
   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes 
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct 
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
 
 -- 
 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+u...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-16 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
The reason for dropping field presence is more of the same with dropping
default values. Basically we want to simplify protobuf and make it easier
to implement efficiently in more languages. We are preparing the proto3
documentation and will share more information about the trade-offs we have
made.
On Fri Jan 16 2015 at 12:17:25 PM V.B. vidalborro...@gmail.com wrote:

 Can I ask for more details about why presence logic was removed (e.g.
 hasFoo() ) for primitives? This has been a very useful feature for us.


   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.

  --
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-16 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Thu Jan 15 2015 at 1:10:10 PM Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Feng,

 Would it not be better to throw errors/exceptions when you try to
 serialize to JSON (from languages like C++ or Java) or when code is
 generated for these particular languages, rather than completely remove the
 feature across the board?

My gut feeling is no, it would not make it better.

Proto3 is designed as a new protobuf language version with support for a
wider range of programming languages. A consistent feature set is important
for the interchangeability between languages. I don't think we'll make the
proto3 support in C++/Java have more features than other languages (or vice
versa).





 On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:16 PM, 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers 
 protobuf@googlegroups.com wrote:

 On Thu Jan 15 2015 at 7:01:33 AM Alex Antonov aant...@gmail.com wrote:

 I fully second that opinion.  We rely a lot on being able to set
 explicit defaults that are not language defaults (Java 0, , false, etc).
 It puzzles me to even think as to why someone might want to take that
 feature away!!!

 The decision is made to make protobuf easier to implement efficiently in
 a lot of other languages that we want to support and for some features like
 JSON that we are going to add. I think we can all agree that default value
 is a useful feature, but it's not a mandatory feature to protobuf and
 creates real problems in the implementation of some languages (For example
 some languages may use a simple struct to represent a protobuf message and
 there isn't a way to specify default values. Or in the case of JSON, a
 client might have no way to know the non-0 default values.)




 On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 6:50:37 AM UTC-6, Jeremy Swigart wrote:

 That sounds like a poor design decision, and one easily readded without
 breaking anything. If a field doesn't have an explicit default, you use 0
 or whatever, thereby not breaking anyone not using them, but if an explicit
 default is provided that is used instead. I am using that feature as well.

  --
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Protocol Buffers group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/protobuf/ZRpcfmeGK6s/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.


 To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-16 Thread V.B.
I suppose what I'm really wondering is:
a) How does it simplify the language implementations exactly?
b) Why was that not the case for *non*-primitives, which still have 
presence logic?


On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 6:39:56 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 The reason for dropping field presence is more of the same with dropping 
 default values. Basically we want to simplify protobuf and make it easier 
 to implement efficiently in more languages. We are preparing the proto3 
 documentation and will share more information about the trade-offs we have 
 made.
 On Fri Jan 16 2015 at 12:17:25 PM V.B. vidalb...@gmail.com javascript: 
 wrote:

 Can I ask for more details about why presence logic was removed (e.g. 
 hasFoo() ) for primitives? This has been a very useful feature for us.


   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields, 
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes 
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct 
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.

  -- 
 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+u...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-15 Thread Alex Antonov
I fully second that opinion.  We rely a lot on being able to set explicit 
defaults that are not language defaults (Java 0, , false, etc).  It 
puzzles me to even think as to why someone might want to take that feature 
away!!!

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 6:50:37 AM UTC-6, Jeremy Swigart wrote:

 That sounds like a poor design decision, and one easily readded without 
 breaking anything. If a field doesn't have an explicit default, you use 0 
 or whatever, thereby not breaking anyone not using them, but if an explicit 
 default is provided that is used instead. I am using that feature as well. 

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-15 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Tue Jan 13 2015 at 3:17:26 PM Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Since this feature is never going to be exposed, what advice do you have
 for people who are using this feature and want to migrate to v3? Also, what
 can we do as users to skip encoding certain fields with the new library?

We are aware of the migration difficulties from v2 to v3 due to removed
features. As such we do not encourage existing users to migrate and commit
to continue the support for proto2 syntax.

You could have both proto2 and proto3 syntax files in your project and they
are allowed to import each other despite the syntax differences.



 Thanks,

 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:



 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Feng,

 What do you mean when you say In C++/Java/Python where we support both
 proto2 and proto3, default values will continue to exist?

 What I meant is that you can still find its traces in the implementation
 but the feature itself is not exposed publicly in proto3 (i.e., we are
 still using it under-the-hood).


 When I run protoc (v3) with the syntax=proto3 tag, it shows an error
 Explicit default values are not allowed in proto3. and exits (no code is
 generated). This does not let me use other proto 3 features if my proto
 definition file contain default values.

 Thanks for your timely responses! Highly appreciate it!




 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:



 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Would it be possible to re-introduce this feature in a subsequent
 release? It seems like you are still using it under-the-hood.

 In C++/Java/Python where we support both proto2 and proto3, default
 values will continue to exist. In new languages (e.g., ruby) though, the
 support for non-zero default values will be dropped completely.


 And because of the benefits I mentioned above, I strongly feel that it
 will only help the community.

 As far as I know, the decision is final. Internally a lot Google
 projects have already adopted the new syntax and so far we have not heard
 problems caused by disallowing default values. It's unlikely this will be
 changed in the future. The omission of this feature (and other features) is
 to make the language simpler and to allow more idiomatic implementations in
 a wider range of languages. It's believed this decision will help the
 protobuf community (both protobuf maintainers and protobuf users) and we
 expect proto3 to be a version that can be more easily adopted than proto2
 by new users due to these simplifications. For existing users who rely on
 removed features, they can continue to use proto2 and that will be
 supported for a long time (if not forever). Currently we generally do not
 recommend migrating existing proto2 projects to proto3 because of
 incompatibility issues (e.g., extensions are dropped in proto3) and only
 recommend new users to use proto3.



 Best,

 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:

 +liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is
 dropped from proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.

 Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of
 people for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this
 forum though...
 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?




 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish wrote:

 Hey guys,

 Thanks for all the hard work!

 I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for
 default values. Fields which are set to their default values are not
 serialized. I noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  
 this
 condition still holds true. But the default values used are the 
 standard
 ones (0 for int64/int32 etc) and cannot be specified in the .proto 
 file. In
 some of my code, I had reasons to use non-zero default values (-1 for 
 some
 integers, 1024 for some others, 3.14 for some doubles etc). Using the 
 old
 protocol buffers, this was trivial to implement. This was a great 
 feature
 as we could save atleast 2 bytes for every untouched field (which 
 comes
 in handy when we persist the data :-)).

 Is there any way we can retain specification of default values in
 the .proto files and using them in the generated encoders/decoders?

 Thanks very much!

 Looking forward to the 3.0 release!

 Best,
 Arjun Satish


 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:51:01 PM UTC-8, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
 php,
 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-15 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Thu Jan 15 2015 at 7:01:33 AM Alex Antonov aant...@gmail.com wrote:

 I fully second that opinion.  We rely a lot on being able to set explicit
 defaults that are not language defaults (Java 0, , false, etc).  It
 puzzles me to even think as to why someone might want to take that feature
 away!!!

The decision is made to make protobuf easier to implement efficiently in a
lot of other languages that we want to support and for some features like
JSON that we are going to add. I think we can all agree that default value
is a useful feature, but it's not a mandatory feature to protobuf and
creates real problems in the implementation of some languages (For example
some languages may use a simple struct to represent a protobuf message and
there isn't a way to specify default values. Or in the case of JSON, a
client might have no way to know the non-0 default values.)




 On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 6:50:37 AM UTC-6, Jeremy Swigart wrote:

 That sounds like a poor design decision, and one easily readded without
 breaking anything. If a field doesn't have an explicit default, you use 0
 or whatever, thereby not breaking anyone not using them, but if an explicit
 default is provided that is used instead. I am using that feature as well.

  --
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-15 Thread Arjun Satish
Feng,

Would it not be better to throw errors/exceptions when you try to serialize
to JSON (from languages like C++ or Java) or when code is generated for
these particular languages, rather than completely remove the feature
across the board?



On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:16 PM, 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers 
protobuf@googlegroups.com wrote:

 On Thu Jan 15 2015 at 7:01:33 AM Alex Antonov aant...@gmail.com wrote:

 I fully second that opinion.  We rely a lot on being able to set explicit
 defaults that are not language defaults (Java 0, , false, etc).  It
 puzzles me to even think as to why someone might want to take that feature
 away!!!

 The decision is made to make protobuf easier to implement efficiently in a
 lot of other languages that we want to support and for some features like
 JSON that we are going to add. I think we can all agree that default value
 is a useful feature, but it's not a mandatory feature to protobuf and
 creates real problems in the implementation of some languages (For example
 some languages may use a simple struct to represent a protobuf message and
 there isn't a way to specify default values. Or in the case of JSON, a
 client might have no way to know the non-0 default values.)




 On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 6:50:37 AM UTC-6, Jeremy Swigart wrote:

 That sounds like a poor design decision, and one easily readded without
 breaking anything. If a field doesn't have an explicit default, you use 0
 or whatever, thereby not breaking anyone not using them, but if an explicit
 default is provided that is used instead. I am using that feature as well.

  --
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Protocol Buffers group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/protobuf/ZRpcfmeGK6s/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
 protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
 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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-14 Thread Jeremy Swigart
That sounds like a poor design decision, and one easily readded without 
breaking anything. If a field doesn't have an explicit default, you use 0 or 
whatever, thereby not breaking anyone not using them, but if an explicit 
default is provided that is used instead. I am using that feature as well. 

-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-13 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Would it be possible to re-introduce this feature in a subsequent release?
 It seems like you are still using it under-the-hood.

In C++/Java/Python where we support both proto2 and proto3, default values
will continue to exist. In new languages (e.g., ruby) though, the support
for non-zero default values will be dropped completely.


 And because of the benefits I mentioned above, I strongly feel that it
 will only help the community.

As far as I know, the decision is final. Internally a lot Google projects
have already adopted the new syntax and so far we have not heard problems
caused by disallowing default values. It's unlikely this will be changed in
the future. The omission of this feature (and other features) is to make
the language simpler and to allow more idiomatic implementations in a wider
range of languages. It's believed this decision will help the protobuf
community (both protobuf maintainers and protobuf users) and we expect
proto3 to be a version that can be more easily adopted than proto2 by new
users due to these simplifications. For existing users who rely on removed
features, they can continue to use proto2 and that will be supported for a
long time (if not forever). Currently we generally do not recommend
migrating existing proto2 projects to proto3 because of incompatibility
issues (e.g., extensions are dropped in proto3) and only recommend new
users to use proto3.



 Best,

 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:

 +liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is dropped
 from proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.

 Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of
 people for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this
 forum though...
 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com wrote:

 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?




 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish wrote:

 Hey guys,

 Thanks for all the hard work!

 I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for default
 values. Fields which are set to their default values are not serialized. I
 noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  this condition
 still holds true. But the default values used are the standard ones (0 for
 int64/int32 etc) and cannot be specified in the .proto file. In some of my
 code, I had reasons to use non-zero default values (-1 for some integers,
 1024 for some others, 3.14 for some doubles etc). Using the old protocol
 buffers, this was trivial to implement. This was a great feature as we
 could save atleast 2 bytes for every untouched field (which comes in
 handy when we persist the data :-)).

 Is there any way we can retain specification of default values in the
 .proto files and using them in the generated encoders/decoders?

 Thanks very much!

 Looking forward to the 3.0 release!

 Best,
 Arjun Satish


 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:51:01 PM UTC-8, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php,
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features
 and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For
 the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3)
 is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf
 before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API
 platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-13 Thread Arjun Satish
Feng,

What do you mean when you say In C++/Java/Python where we support both
proto2 and proto3, default values will continue to exist? When I run
protoc (v3) with the syntax=proto3 tag, it shows an error Explicit
default values are not allowed in proto3. and exits (no code is
generated). This does not let me use other proto 3 features if my proto
definition file contain default values.

Thanks for your timely responses! Highly appreciate it!




On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:



 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Would it be possible to re-introduce this feature in a subsequent
 release? It seems like you are still using it under-the-hood.

 In C++/Java/Python where we support both proto2 and proto3, default values
 will continue to exist. In new languages (e.g., ruby) though, the support
 for non-zero default values will be dropped completely.


 And because of the benefits I mentioned above, I strongly feel that it
 will only help the community.

 As far as I know, the decision is final. Internally a lot Google projects
 have already adopted the new syntax and so far we have not heard problems
 caused by disallowing default values. It's unlikely this will be changed in
 the future. The omission of this feature (and other features) is to make
 the language simpler and to allow more idiomatic implementations in a wider
 range of languages. It's believed this decision will help the protobuf
 community (both protobuf maintainers and protobuf users) and we expect
 proto3 to be a version that can be more easily adopted than proto2 by new
 users due to these simplifications. For existing users who rely on removed
 features, they can continue to use proto2 and that will be supported for a
 long time (if not forever). Currently we generally do not recommend
 migrating existing proto2 projects to proto3 because of incompatibility
 issues (e.g., extensions are dropped in proto3) and only recommend new
 users to use proto3.



 Best,

 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:

 +liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is dropped
 from proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.

 Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of
 people for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this
 forum though...
 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?




 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish wrote:

 Hey guys,

 Thanks for all the hard work!

 I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for default
 values. Fields which are set to their default values are not serialized. I
 noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  this condition
 still holds true. But the default values used are the standard ones (0 for
 int64/int32 etc) and cannot be specified in the .proto file. In some of my
 code, I had reasons to use non-zero default values (-1 for some integers,
 1024 for some others, 3.14 for some doubles etc). Using the old protocol
 buffers, this was trivial to implement. This was a great feature as we
 could save atleast 2 bytes for every untouched field (which comes in
 handy when we persist the data :-)).

 Is there any way we can retain specification of default values in the
 .proto files and using them in the generated encoders/decoders?

 Thanks very much!

 Looking forward to the 3.0 release!

 Best,
 Arjun Satish


 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:51:01 PM UTC-8, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php,
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
 (aka
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features
 and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer
 guide https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview.
 For the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other 
 new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-13 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Feng,

 What do you mean when you say In C++/Java/Python where we support both
 proto2 and proto3, default values will continue to exist?

What I meant is that you can still find its traces in the implementation
but the feature itself is not exposed publicly in proto3 (i.e., we are
still using it under-the-hood).


 When I run protoc (v3) with the syntax=proto3 tag, it shows an error
 Explicit default values are not allowed in proto3. and exits (no code is
 generated). This does not let me use other proto 3 features if my proto
 definition file contain default values.

 Thanks for your timely responses! Highly appreciate it!




 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:



 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Would it be possible to re-introduce this feature in a subsequent
 release? It seems like you are still using it under-the-hood.

 In C++/Java/Python where we support both proto2 and proto3, default
 values will continue to exist. In new languages (e.g., ruby) though, the
 support for non-zero default values will be dropped completely.


 And because of the benefits I mentioned above, I strongly feel that it
 will only help the community.

 As far as I know, the decision is final. Internally a lot Google projects
 have already adopted the new syntax and so far we have not heard problems
 caused by disallowing default values. It's unlikely this will be changed in
 the future. The omission of this feature (and other features) is to make
 the language simpler and to allow more idiomatic implementations in a wider
 range of languages. It's believed this decision will help the protobuf
 community (both protobuf maintainers and protobuf users) and we expect
 proto3 to be a version that can be more easily adopted than proto2 by new
 users due to these simplifications. For existing users who rely on removed
 features, they can continue to use proto2 and that will be supported for a
 long time (if not forever). Currently we generally do not recommend
 migrating existing proto2 projects to proto3 because of incompatibility
 issues (e.g., extensions are dropped in proto3) and only recommend new
 users to use proto3.



 Best,

 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:

 +liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is dropped
 from proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.

 Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of
 people for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this
 forum though...
 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?




 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish wrote:

 Hey guys,

 Thanks for all the hard work!

 I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for default
 values. Fields which are set to their default values are not serialized. 
 I
 noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  this condition
 still holds true. But the default values used are the standard ones (0 
 for
 int64/int32 etc) and cannot be specified in the .proto file. In some of 
 my
 code, I had reasons to use non-zero default values (-1 for some integers,
 1024 for some others, 3.14 for some doubles etc). Using the old protocol
 buffers, this was trivial to implement. This was a great feature as we
 could save atleast 2 bytes for every untouched field (which comes in
 handy when we persist the data :-)).

 Is there any way we can retain specification of default values in the
 .proto files and using them in the generated encoders/decoders?

 Thanks very much!

 Looking forward to the 3.0 release!

 Best,
 Arjun Satish


 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:51:01 PM UTC-8, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
 php,
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha 
 version
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language version 
 (aka
 proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features
 and when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer
 guide https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview.
 For the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other 
 new
 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-13 Thread Arjun Satish
Since this feature is never going to be exposed, what advice do you have
for people who are using this feature and want to migrate to v3? Also, what
can we do as users to skip encoding certain fields with the new library?

Thanks,

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:



 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Feng,

 What do you mean when you say In C++/Java/Python where we support both
 proto2 and proto3, default values will continue to exist?

 What I meant is that you can still find its traces in the implementation
 but the feature itself is not exposed publicly in proto3 (i.e., we are
 still using it under-the-hood).


 When I run protoc (v3) with the syntax=proto3 tag, it shows an error
 Explicit default values are not allowed in proto3. and exits (no code is
 generated). This does not let me use other proto 3 features if my proto
 definition file contain default values.

 Thanks for your timely responses! Highly appreciate it!




 On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:



 On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Would it be possible to re-introduce this feature in a subsequent
 release? It seems like you are still using it under-the-hood.

 In C++/Java/Python where we support both proto2 and proto3, default
 values will continue to exist. In new languages (e.g., ruby) though, the
 support for non-zero default values will be dropped completely.


 And because of the benefits I mentioned above, I strongly feel that it
 will only help the community.

 As far as I know, the decision is final. Internally a lot Google
 projects have already adopted the new syntax and so far we have not heard
 problems caused by disallowing default values. It's unlikely this will be
 changed in the future. The omission of this feature (and other features) is
 to make the language simpler and to allow more idiomatic implementations in
 a wider range of languages. It's believed this decision will help the
 protobuf community (both protobuf maintainers and protobuf users) and we
 expect proto3 to be a version that can be more easily adopted than proto2
 by new users due to these simplifications. For existing users who rely on
 removed features, they can continue to use proto2 and that will be
 supported for a long time (if not forever). Currently we generally do not
 recommend migrating existing proto2 projects to proto3 because of
 incompatibility issues (e.g., extensions are dropped in proto3) and only
 recommend new users to use proto3.



 Best,

 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:

 +liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is
 dropped from proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.

 Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of
 people for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this
 forum though...
 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?




 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish wrote:

 Hey guys,

 Thanks for all the hard work!

 I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for default
 values. Fields which are set to their default values are not 
 serialized. I
 noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  this condition
 still holds true. But the default values used are the standard ones (0 
 for
 int64/int32 etc) and cannot be specified in the .proto file. In some of 
 my
 code, I had reasons to use non-zero default values (-1 for some 
 integers,
 1024 for some others, 3.14 for some doubles etc). Using the old protocol
 buffers, this was trivial to implement. This was a great feature as we
 could save atleast 2 bytes for every untouched field (which comes in
 handy when we persist the data :-)).

 Is there any way we can retain specification of default values in
 the .proto files and using them in the generated encoders/decoders?

 Thanks very much!

 Looking forward to the 3.0 release!

 Best,
 Arjun Satish


 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:51:01 PM UTC-8, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf
 v3.0.0, we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and
 support a wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, 
 php,
 node.js, objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java
 implementation with partial proto3 support (see below for details). In
 future releases we will add support for more programming languages and
 implement the full proto3 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha 
 version
 also includes two other new features: map fields and arena allocation. 
 They
 are implemented for both proto3 and the old protobuf language 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-12 Thread Arjun Satish
Would it be possible to re-introduce this feature in a subsequent release?
It seems like you are still using it under-the-hood. And because of the
benefits I mentioned above, I strongly feel that it will only help the
community.

Best,

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Feng Xiao xiaof...@google.com wrote:

 +liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is dropped
 from proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.

 Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of people
 for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this forum
 though...
 On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com wrote:

 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?




 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish wrote:

 Hey guys,

 Thanks for all the hard work!

 I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for default
 values. Fields which are set to their default values are not serialized. I
 noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  this condition
 still holds true. But the default values used are the standard ones (0 for
 int64/int32 etc) and cannot be specified in the .proto file. In some of my
 code, I had reasons to use non-zero default values (-1 for some integers,
 1024 for some others, 3.14 for some doubles etc). Using the old protocol
 buffers, this was trivial to implement. This was a great feature as we
 could save atleast 2 bytes for every untouched field (which comes in
 handy when we persist the data :-)).

 Is there any way we can retain specification of default values in the
 .proto files and using them in the generated encoders/decoders?

 Thanks very much!

 Looking forward to the 3.0 release!

 Best,
 Arjun Satish


 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:51:01 PM UTC-8, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For
 the time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation
 of time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary
 proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for
 C++ and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2015-01-07 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
+liujisi, who should have a better idea of why default value is dropped
from proto3 and what alternatives users can rely on.

Internally the design of proto3 has been discussed among a group of people
for quite a long time, but most of them haven't subscribed this forum
though...
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 18:52 Arjun Satish arjun.sat...@gmail.com wrote:

 Did anyone get a chance to look at this request?




 On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:54:12 PM UTC-8, Arjun Satish wrote:

 Hey guys,

 Thanks for all the hard work!

 I have a question regarding the decision to drop support for default
 values. Fields which are set to their default values are not serialized. I
 noticed that in the new code (3.0.0-alpha-1 for Java),  this condition
 still holds true. But the default values used are the standard ones (0 for
 int64/int32 etc) and cannot be specified in the .proto file. In some of my
 code, I had reasons to use non-zero default values (-1 for some integers,
 1024 for some others, 3.14 for some doubles etc). Using the old protocol
 buffers, this was trivial to implement. This was a great feature as we
 could save atleast 2 bytes for every untouched field (which comes in
 handy when we persist the data :-)).

 Is there any way we can retain specification of default values in the
 .proto files and using them in the generated encoders/decoders?

 Thanks very much!

 Looking forward to the 3.0 release!

 Best,
 Arjun Satish


 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:51:01 PM UTC-8, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary
 proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for
 C++ and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in
 a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from
 proto3 due
 to API 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2014-12-11 Thread 'Feng Xiao' via Protocol Buffers
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Vladimir Agafonkin agafon...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Really awesome!

 One question about maps — how are they encoded in terms of packed size?
 How does it compare to just using a repeated message with key/value pairs?

Map fields are encoded as a repeated message field. The following two
definitions generate the same wire format:
message A {
  mapstring, string values = 1;
}
message B {
  message MapEntry {
option map_entry = true;
string key = 1;
string value = 2;
  }
  repeated MapEntry values = 1;
}

If you add map fields to a proto file, languages that haven't supported map
fields will still be able to generate code for this proto file and can also
use it to communicate with other languages that have maps implemented.




 On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:51:01 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Hi all,

 I just published protobuf v3.0.0-alpha-1 on our github site:
 https://github.com/google/protobuf/releases/tag/v3.0.0-alpha-1

 This is the first alpha release of protobuf v3.0.0. In protobuf v3.0.0,
 we will add a new protobuf language version (aka proto3) and support a
 wider range of programming languages (to name a few: ruby, php, node.js,
 objective-c). This alpha version contains C++ and Java implementation with
 partial proto3 support (see below for details). In future releases we will
 add support for more programming languages and implement the full proto3
 feature set. Besides proto3, this alpha version also includes two other new
 features: map fields and arena allocation. They are implemented for both
 proto3 and the old protobuf language version (aka proto2).

 We are currently working on the documentation of these new features and
 when it's ready it will be updated to our protobuf developer guide
 https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/overview. For the
 time being if you have any questions regarding proto3 or other new
 features, please post your question in the discussion group.

 CHANGS
 ===
 Version 3.0.0-alpha-1 (C++/Java):

   General
   * Introduced Protocol Buffers language version 3 (aka proto3).

 When protobuf was initially opensourced it implemented Protocol
 Buffers
 language version 2 (aka proto2), which is why the version number
 started from v2.0.0. From v3.0.0, a new language version (proto3) is
 introduced while the old version (proto2) will continue to be
 supported.

 The main intent of introducing proto3 is to clean up protobuf before
 pushing the language as the foundation of Google's new API platform.
 In proto3, the language is simplified, both for ease of use and  to
 make it available in a wider range of programming languages. At the
 same time a few features are added to better support common idioms
 found in APIs.

 The following are the main new features in language version 3:

   1. Removal of field presence logic for primitive value fields,
 removal
  of required fields, and removal of default values. This makes
 proto3
  significantly easier to implement with open struct
 representations,
  as in languages like Android Java, Objective C, or Go.
   2. Removal of unknown fields.
   3. Removal of extensions, which are instead replaced by a new
 standard
  type called Any.
   4. Fix semantics for unknown enum values.
   5. Addition of maps.
   6. Addition of a small set of standard types for representation of
 time,
  dynamic data, etc.
   7. A well-defined encoding in JSON as an alternative to binary proto
  encoding.

 This release (v3.0.0-alpha-1) includes partial proto3 support for C++
 and
 Java. Items 6 (well-known types) and 7 (JSON format) in the above
 feature
 list are not implemented.

 A new notion syntax is introduced to specify whether a .proto file
 uses proto2 or proto3:

   // foo.proto
   syntax = proto3;
   message Bar {...}

 If omitted, the protocol compiler will generate a warning and
 proto2 will
 be used as the default. This warning will be turned into an error in a
 future release.

 We recommend that new Protocol Buffers users use proto3. However, we
 do not
 generally recommend that existing users migrate from proto2 from
 proto3 due
 to API incompatibility, and we will continue to support proto2 for a
 long
 time.

   * Added support for map fields (implemented in C++/Java for both proto2
 and
 proto3).

 Map fields can be declared using the following syntax:

   message Foo {
 mapstring, string values = 1;
   }

 Data of a map field will be stored in memory as an unordered map and
 it
 can be accessed through generated accessors.

   C++
   * Added arena allocation support (for both proto2 and proto3).

 Profiling shows memory allocation and deallocation constitutes a
 significant
 fraction of CPU-time spent in protobuf code and arena allocation is a
 

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf Buffers v3.0.0-alpha-1

2014-12-11 Thread Vladimir Agafonkin
Oh, bummer. I was hoping for a more compact map packing. Currently I'm 
using the following to do this:

repeated uint32 properties = 1; // key/value index pairs
repeated string keys = 2; // unique keys
repeated string values = 3; // unique values

On Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:24:09 PM UTC-5, Feng Xiao wrote:

 Map fields are encoded as a repeated message field. The following two 
 definitions generate the same wire format:
 message A {
   mapstring, string values = 1;
 }
 message B {
   message MapEntry {
 option map_entry = true;
 string key = 1;
 string value = 2;
   }
   repeated MapEntry values = 1;
 }


-- 
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 http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.