Status: New
Owner: liuj...@google.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 315 by gerd94...@gmail.com: erroneous duplicate definition error
if imported file in subdirectory
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=315
What steps will reproduce the problem?
Create "foo.proto
Comment #1 on issue 315 by gerd94...@gmail.com: erroneous duplicate
definition error if imported file in subdirectory
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=315
The error message the compiler produces is:
% protoc --python_out=. -I. -Ix foo.proto
x/bar.proto
We are wondering if the serialized data format used by Protocol
Buffers is standardized or in some way set in stone? In other words,
should we have any expectation that it will change in the future and
we won't be able to read the serialized data back into a Message
class?
For example, we receive
In my project, I can only use c and any c++ dependence is not
allowed.
Anyone know any pure c port ?
Thanks.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe fro
I have a use-case where I get an object of a different nature, which I
cannot change. I need to serialize this object to the wire as a ProtoBuf
object. I have a mirror ProtoBuf object structure, all defined and working
fine. However, I currently need to deep-clone my original object into the PB
>From my perspective as a fellow user, the spec is very stable in terms of
>breaking changes. The last notable wire change I can think of is packed
>arrays, which would:
A: only apply on an opt-in basis
B: continue to be round-trip safe (via extension fields) for clients that
didn't expect it.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Marc Gravell wrote:
> From my perspective as a fellow user, the spec is very stable in terms of
> breaking changes. The last notable wire change I can think of is packed
> arrays, which would:
> A: only apply on an opt-in basis
> B: continue to be round-trip safe
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:19, jl wrote:
> We are wondering if the serialized data format used by Protocol
> Buffers is standardized or in some way set in stone? In other words,
> should we have any expectation that it will change in the future and
> we won't be able to read the serialized data ba
On Jul 15, 1:24 pm, Henner Zeller
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:19, jl wrote:
> > We are wondering if the serialized data format used by Protocol
> > Buffers is standardized or in some way set in stone? In other words,
> >
> > I could not find any mention about this on the Protobuf website
Comment #1 on issue 314 by jas...@google.com: need to give a tag for all
repeated booleans?
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=314
What language? In C++ at least there is a "short repeated format" available
for short repeated primitives, e.g>:
preserve: { node: [ 0, 0, 0, 1
And if yes, are any of those in Java?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/HvnVZaTdL5cJ.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegro
11 matches
Mail list logo
