Thank you. However, your proposed solution uncovers otherwise transparent behavior of the field. It puts a responsibility of encryption handling on author of the data, instead on the DTO (data transfer object) itself.
With "insertion point" (let's call it so despite it likely will not be one) you can get always string value (as it is defined) which is transparently encoded (as the value of the option dictates). 2015-07-13 19:43 GMT+02:00 Feng Xiao <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Pavol Ostertag <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Is it possible to generate custom getters and setters for certain field? >> Are there any field-level "insertion points" planned? >> > We add "insertion points" per user requests. Feel free to send us PRs to > add insertion points that you think are needed. > > >> >> My use-case: I have field with option=encrypted. I want to encrypt >> content of this (string) field after everyset() and decrypt before every >> get(). >> > It's unlikely that "insertion points" can be used to change the behavior > of existing generated methods (like get()/set()). I suggest adding some new > methods for your use case instead. Something like > get_encrypted()/set_encrypted(). > > >> >> Thank you >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
