Why not support 'extend'? about protobuf.js HOT 6 CLOSED

Yes, extend is not fully supported. One goal was to keep the library small, but I'd also be happy to see a PR for this 👍

from protobuf.js.

I am trying to add support for extend here: https://github.com/danielflower/ProtoBuf.js/commits/master

Given the following:

message Foo {
  optional string blah = 1;
  extensions 1000 to max;
}

extend Foo {
  optional int32 bar = 1001;
}

message Person {
  extend Foo {
      optional Person person = 1002;
  }
  required string name = 1;
  required int32 id = 2;
  optional string email = 3;
}

...you can work with Foo as if the extend blocks were directly on Foo (this is a little different from, Java, say, where you had to call special setExtension()/getExtension() methods.

            var Foo = builder.build("Foo");
            var foo = new Foo({
                "blah": "blahValue",
                "bar": 12,
                person: {
                    "name": "Nancy",
                    "id": 123
                }
            });

I will do more testing before making a pull request.

from protobuf.js.

Hi Daniel,

Are you ready to pull request your patch? I also want to use "extend" in my protobuf. Your change is good to me. Thanks.

from protobuf.js.

The library already supports extend in most common use cases. What's described here are rather a couple of edge cases.

from protobuf.js.

The edge cases you mentioned is like the above one (internal definitions), right? ex.

message Foo {
  optional string blah = 1;
  extensions 1000 to max;
}

message PersonA {
  extend Foo {
      optional PersonA person = 1001;
  }
  required string name = 1;
}

message PersonB {
  extend Foo {
      optional PersonB person = 1002;
  }
  required int32 = 1;
}

If I want to parse this message buffer, it may has problems now, right?

// data is the input ArrayBuffer which was already encoded by the remote side.
var bytebuf = dcodeIO.ByteBuffer.wrap(data); 
var foo = builder.build("Foo");
var packet = foo.decode(bytebuf); // Could this work if I added extend PersionA or PersionB already?

from protobuf.js.

Internal definitions are not used by / available with ProtoBuf.js, but this should work as of today:

message Foo {
  optional string blah = 1;
  extensions 1000 to max;
}

message PersonA {
  extend Foo {
      optional PersonA persona = 1001;
  }
  required string name = 1;
}

message PersonB {
  extend Foo {
      optional PersonB personb = 1002;
  }
  required int32 bleh = 1;
}

And is equivalent to:

message Foo {
  optional string blah = 1;
  extensions 1000 to max;
}

message PersonA {
  required string name = 1;
}

message PersonB {
  required int32 bleh = 1;
}

extend Foo {
  optional PersonA persona = 1001;
  optional PersonB personb = 1002;
}

from protobuf.js.