Updates:
Status: WorkingAsIntended
Comment #1 on issue 630 by xiaof...@google.com: Java: initializing
bitFields variables
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=630
This is working as intended. bitFields should be initialized to all zeros
and it's reasonable to not do
Comment #2 on issue 630 by kral.voj...@gmail.com: Java: initializing
bitFields variables
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=630
Ok, I needed different behavior from the parsing so I had to call it by
myself and I noticed this handling of bitFields and since I was not sure
Comment #3 on issue 630 by kral.voj...@gmail.com: Java: initializing
bitFields variables
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=630
Ok, I needed different behavior from the parsing so I had to call it by
myself and I noticed this handling of bitFields and since I was not sure
Comment #4 on issue 630 by xiaof...@google.com: Java: initializing
bitFields variables
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=630
If you are implementing your own parsing methods, it's better to only use
public methods (e.g., clear() when you want to reset a mesasge). Internal
Comment #5 on issue 630 by kral.voj...@gmail.com: Java: initializing
bitFields variables
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=630
And just quick wondering why are the other number types properties not set
as bitFields so by JVM only without the setting in initialization
Comment #6 on issue 630 by xiaof...@google.com: Java: initializing
bitFields variables
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=630
Re #5:
JVM will only set the value to 0 but an integral protobuf field may have a
non-zero default value (set by field option [default = 12345]).
Comment #7 on issue 630 by kral.voj...@gmail.com: Java: initializing
bitFields variables
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/issues/detail?id=630
I see. That is what confuse me the difference between attributes with zeros
and the bitFields.
--
You received this message because this project
