[protobuf] protoc-gen-go and internal/grpc

protoc-gen-go/ that could be imported just to link the grpc plugin, but that seems silly: would it be reasonable to elide the /internal/ subdirectory? Zellyn -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To unsubscribe from this

[protobuf] Question about Go protocol buffer documentation

those files. Is that correct? Is it documented somewhere? And is it considered a bug? (I ask this last, because it makes the build/make process fragile: if someone changes a package somewhere, the build process needs to change too.) Thanks, Zellyn -- You received this message because you are s

[protobuf] What are well-known types?

ence/google.protobuf, includes all sorts of things like Struct, Method, Mixin, etc. that are entirely unclear. Is there a conversation happening somewhere that I'm missing, or is it Google-internal but not documented outside yet? Thanks, Zellyn ps - the reintroduction of message ty

[protobuf] Re: Default Values vs Missing Values

protos are also gaining "Well-known Types", some of which are "boxed" (Message) versions of the primitive types: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/reference/google.protobuf I believe the actual docs on well-known types are currently Google-internal :-(

[protobuf] Question about Go protobufs and import_prefix

recent increase in grpc-related volatility of the protobuf package, it's increasingly painful to maintain our fork. And since grpc updates are often tied to proto updates, I can't simply avoid updating it. Plus all the usual reasons maintaining a fork is terrible :-) Comments, su

Re: [protobuf] Question about Go protobufs and import_prefix

tive would be for protoc to understand Go > vendor directories, but that would require putting some Go-specific logic > in protoc itself. > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Zellyn Hunter > wrote: > >> Yeah I can do anything with a wrapper. But to the extent that our

Re: [protobuf] Proposal: a mechanism to deal with sensitive/redacted fields in string output

document/d/18WI8zN7rk6R0jXW1iC8LDYz7LJ0OrUOTKMGD7nyEnFs> . Zellyn On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 12:10:14 PM UTC-5, Adam Cozzette wrote: > > Hi Zellyn, this sounds like a reasonable idea. As the next step could you > perhaps write up a short proposal with more details on what exac

[protobuf] Question about json_name and protoc

If so, could anyone help me track down the commit that did it? Thanks, Zellyn -- 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...@g

[protobuf] Re: Question about json_name and protoc

, unless an explicit json_name was specified. Or am I understanding it wrong? Zellyn On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, Zellyn wrote: > > Hey folks, > > We're trying to update the version of protoc we use for compiling our Go > protobufs. It appears that a

Re: [protobuf] Re: Question about json_name and protoc

Yeah, it's precisely the fact that protoc populates that field regardless of whether it was specified that I consider bad. https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/issues/5587 I'm probably way too late to get it fixed, though: it looks like 3.1.0 introduced that behavior :-(

Re: [protobuf] Question about Go protobufs and import_prefix

or unusual: as GRPC sees an increase in use as a cross-language RPC mechanism, everyone else is going to struggle with the same things. Zellyn On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:32 PM Ross Light wrote: > Sorry for the delayed response! I've written about 3-4 draft replies over > this week that I

Re: [protobuf] Question about Go protobufs and import_prefix

. Zellyn On Fri, Jul 8, 2016, 6:52 PM 'Josh Haberman' via Protocol Buffers < protobuf@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I don't know the background of the Go import system or go_package option. > However this statement concerns me a little: > > > We have to use go_packag

Re: [protobuf] Question about Go protobufs and import_prefix

Yeah I can do anything with a wrapper. But to the extent that our concerns and structure are normal, it would be a shame to need a wrapper. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 8:54 AM Ross Light wrote: > Zellyn and I talked a little bit at Gophercon about this. I think some > kind of wrapper is in ord

Re: [protobuf] Proposal: a mechanism to deal with sensitive/redacted fields in string output

to provide a related set of minimal patches to (a) protoc, (b) the C protobuf implementation, (c) the Java implementation and (d) the Go implementation, supporting sensitive fields. Unfortunately I just haven't found the time to do all that. Zellyn On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:12 PM Josh Hump

Re: [protobuf] Proposal: a mechanism to deal with sensitive/redacted fields in string output

I would say if it helps we could probably at > least try to refactor things to minimize the complexity of maintaining that > behavior difference. > That would be super-helpful. I'll have to catch up on the current state of protobuf library code and figure out how to allow convenient intercept

[protobuf] Proposal: a mechanism to deal with sensitive/redacted fields in string output

<https://github.com/google/protobuf/issues/1160> a while back, but it didn't go anywhere. I reached out to the protobuf team, and Damien Neil suggested that this group was the appropriate place to propose such changes. Bikeshed away! Zellyn -- You received this message because you a