*From: *Alex Van Boxel <[email protected]> *Date: *Tue, May 14, 2019 at 3:38 PM *To: *ML Beam/Dev
ProtoBuf and certainly the Descriptor is a challenging beast, and I > certainly want to support DynamicMessage (see also my ProtoCoder PR). > > Creating a schema from the proto is easy, the trick is creating the > to/fromRow. With precomiled proto's I can easily get the Descriptor from > the class, but the is not available for DynamicMessages. I need the > descriptor to get the fields (via the FieldDescriptor). > However you do have the schema at graph-construction time, don't you? > > If I can't store it in the schema, I will probably need to store the > Descriptor in the Serializable toRow/fromRow: it's here that the > FieldDescriptor is required. > Yes, that should be fine. > > I had my doubts that Schema was allowed to be extensible... I'll add a PR > to make Schema final, should be a no brainer. > _/ > _/ Alex Van Boxel > > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:05 PM Reuven Lax <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Can you explain what you're trying to do? I don't think that embedding >> the proto descriptor in the schema is a great way to go, but I may not be >> understanding the use case. >> >> *From: *Alex Van Boxel <[email protected]> >> *Date: *Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:00 AM >> *To: *ML Beam/Dev >> >> Hi Schema lovers, >>> >>> I'm implementing schema support for Protobuf and I was wondering if it's >>> allowed to override Schema. It looks tempting (as it's not final), as I >>> need a container for the Proto Descriptor. >>> >>> For normal pre-compiled classes it's not required, but for >>> DynamicMessage it is. If I would be able to store it in Schema I can reuse >>> it in to/fromRow. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> _/ >>> _/ Alex Van Boxel >>> >>
