> On Mar 26, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Yoav H <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I wanted ask regarding the decision to populate fields with default values, > even if they do not appear in the encoded message. > If I want to send a "patch" message, where I want to update just the provided > fields, how can I do that with protobuf (without adding IsXXXSet for every > field)? > > Why not add another type, representing a default value? > So the schematics would be, if the field is missing, it is null, and if the > field exists, but with this "missing value" type, it will get the default > value?
As Ilia pointed out, proto2 still exists, is still supported, and can be used for cases where you require these particular semantics. For proto3, you might look at google.protobuf.FieldMask, which is a new standard message (one of the "well-known types") specifically designed to store a set of field names. You might be able to achieve what you want by providing a FieldMask with your data listing the specific fields to be updated. Tim -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
