Hi guys, Is there any documentation now on the purpose of well-known types? Maybe things have changed in 3 years. What problem they are intended to solve?
Basically, bumping this... On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:55:21 PM UTC-8, Zellyn wrote: > > There are increasing numbers of references to "well-known" types in > protos. For instance, I see changes in the Go implementation to support > them. > There were passing references in release notes in this group. > > However, the main protobuf site includes no narrative explanation that I > can find. > > The idea of a few well-known types to represent "Boxed" values since > proto3 removes the ability to null out fields makes sense, but the only > documentation I could find, in the reference section of the protobuf site > at > https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/reference/google.protobuf, > > includes all sorts of things like Struct, Method, Mixin, etc. that are > entirely unclear. > > Is there a conversation happening somewhere that I'm missing, or is it > Google-internal but not documented outside yet? > > Thanks, > > Zellyn > > ps - the reintroduction of message types for primitives rather undermines > my belief in the arguments for removing optional fields in proto3 in the > first place. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to the folks > designing proto3: is the thinking articulated clearly somewhere? > > -- 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.
