Re: [protobuf] extending field and message options

I believe this is to be expected, because these top-level extensions would end up having the same name. For example in C++ they would both be called example::exOptions and so there would be a conflict there. To get around this you can either give them different names or keep the same names but nest

[protobuf] go protobuf: "rich" descriptors

The Java and C++ protobuf implementati

Re: [protobuf] extending field and message options

All fully-qualified symbols must be a unique for an invocation of protoc. In the generated code, you can refer to the generated extension (just like referring to generated messages, enums, and services), and if their fully-qualified names weren't unique, it would result in compilation errors in the

Re: [protobuf] How to resolve a custom option in a protocol buffer FileDescriptor

When you parse the serialized descriptor proto, you must supply an ExtensionRegistry and make sure that custom option is registered therein. *Josh Humphries* jh...@bluegosling.com On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Bill Smith wrote: > I'm using protocol buffers 2.5 with Java. I have a proto

Re: [protobuf] serializing new proto message with old client (Java)

Are you using syntax = "proto3" in your file? I believe the docs state that proto3 does not require unknown fields to be preserved when a message is de-serialized and re-serialized. So this behavior, IIRC, only works for messages generated from proto2 files. *Josh Humphries* jh...@bluegosling

Re: [protobuf] Re: Protobuf 3.2.0 + Qt 5.8 (Windows)

Hey, I've run into the same problem. According to what I found on the internet, Qt ships protobuf < 3.2, and there was no straightforward way to disable it. Eventually they will conflict, so I needed to downgrade protobuf to 3.1 again to make it work. I hope the next Qt release will upgrade prot

[protobuf] Has Anyone Used protobuf on ucLinux?

I've been tasked with seeing if we can use protobuf on ucLinux (micro c Linux). We had previously been using an embedded version of Debian Linux and we had protobuf working very well on it. The specific issue I am having is as I'm building the protobuf code I get this compile error: google/pr

Re: [protobuf] Has Anyone Used protobuf on ucLinux?

This is in the protobuf compiler. Do you plan on compiling protobuf proto definitions into source code on your ucLinux platform itself? On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Doug Lewis wrote: > I've been tasked with seeing if we can use protobuf on ucLinux (micro c > Linux). We had previously been us

[protobuf] Re: Has Anyone Used protobuf on ucLinux?

My host platform is an Ubuntu Linux box where the protoc compiler will run to generate the C++ code that will be cross compiled to run on the uClinux target. Doug On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:56:04 PM UTC-5, Doug Lewis wrote: > > I've been tasked with seeing if we can use protobuf on ucLinux

Re: [protobuf] Re: Has Anyone Used protobuf on ucLinux?

So then you don't need the code that's giving you errors - it's part of protoc. It's been way too many moons since I've looked at the details for how to only build the lib and not protoc, or even if it's still possible, but you might find that that's the path of least resistance. On Tue, Mar 14, 2

[protobuf] Re: Has Anyone Used protobuf on ucLinux?

Ah I see that in the full output of the make process now. Yes all I really need is to get the libraries built with the cross compiler. Thank you! Doug On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:56:04 PM UTC-5, Doug Lewis wrote: > > I've been tasked with seeing if we can use protobuf on ucLinux (micro c >

[protobuf] How Do I Build Just the C++ Libraries?

I'm going to be using protocol buffers on an embedded system using uClinux. I need to build the C++ libraries using the cross-compiler but *not* build the protoc compiler, I will compile the proto files on my Ubuntu host. If I use the package from git it builds both the protoc compiler and th