Re: C++: Optional Message problems

2008-11-11 Thread Kenton Varda
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Kenton Varda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Either blah.ByteSize() or blah.size() would be valid things to use. > I mean, message.ByteSize() or str.size(). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed t

Re: C++: Optional Message problems

2008-11-11 Thread Kenton Varda
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 7:46 AM, ChJees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I managed to solve my problem now. I used the blah.Bytesize() function > instead of sizeof( blah.c_str() ) when sending the message size :3. Ah, yes, don't use c_str() with serialized protobufs because they may contain zeros be

Re: C++: Optional Message problems

2008-11-11 Thread ChJees
I managed to solve my problem now. I used the blah.Bytesize() function instead of sizeof( blah.c_str() ) when sending the message size :3. Someone should really add to documentation about Sending and Receiving info between Server and Clients to prevent further Headaches. (Not small ones either!)

Re: C++: Optional Message problems

2008-11-10 Thread Kenton Varda
It looks like you are assuming that sends and receives on your TCP stream will match up 1:1. This isn't actually the case. A TCP connection is a stream of bytes, not packets. A single read on the receiving end may receive only part of a packet, or it may receive multiple packets. So, you really

Re: C++: Optional Message problems

2008-11-10 Thread ChJees
It looked like this before i sent the data: (Debug) type: 14 Login { name: "Test" password: "nil" } And i got this on the receiving end: (Debug) type: 14 Login { 14 { } } I can't figure out what in the world which could be changing data... Notice: I am using wxWidgets for UI and SFML fo

Re: C++: Optional Message problems

2008-11-10 Thread Kenton Varda
I don't see anything wrong with your code. What kind of error are you seeing? Are you sure that the bytes you passed in to the parser on the receiving end are exactly the same as what came out of the serializer on the sending side? On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:40 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >