reef-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Douglas Service <dsop...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [REEF-1624] Convert C# projects to use common proto files in lang/common/proto
Date Tue, 04 Oct 2016 01:23:57 GMT
> What's the harm in generating the classes on both sides anyhow?
If the messages are private to one side, it is better to not expose them
from an interface perspective.

> I don't recall the details, but it could be because namespaces are
capitalized in .NET while Java packages are lower-cased?
Protobuf does not have an ifdef like facility so we would have to deal with
the differences by using ifdefs and then running the C preprocessor at
compile time to generate two different files with different casing.

On a slightly different note, but same task.
If we are going wait for .NET 2.0, then my understanding is that we will
replace all of the internal protobuf usage with Avro. If that is the case,
we should just wait on this task. If not we should should upgrade both
sides to 3.0 as the 2.5 files require editing after running protoc which
would be a lot of work to setup in a build only to replace it shortly with
3.0. I can work on removing managed C++ from bridge in the mean time which
has to be done no matter what.

Doug

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Markus Weimer <markus@weimo.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Douglas Service <dsopsrc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Questions:
> > 1) If the extra messages are not used by both sides they should probably
> > not be in this file. Will these messages be shared in the future?
>
> What's the harm in generating the classes on both sides anyhow?
>
> > 2) Is there some reason we cannot use the same capitalization for
> > namespaces on both sides?
>
> I don't recall the details, but it could be because namespaces are
> capitalized in .NET while Java packages are lower-cased?
>
> Markus
>



-- 

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Markus Weimer <markus@weimo.de> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Douglas Service <dsopsrc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Questions:
> 1) If the extra messages are not used by both sides they should probably
> not be in this file. Will these messages be shared in the futur

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message