digitalmars.D.announce - [Library Release] dproto
- Matt Soucy (40/40) Oct 05 2013 Hello, all-
- Jesse Phillips (8/8) Oct 05 2013 This is more of an FYI. I've been using/updating
- Matt Soucy (18/28) Oct 08 2013 Thanks for the tip - I actually did find this one when I started using
- Jesse Phillips (10/35) Oct 09 2013 You're thinking:
- Matt Soucy (11/42) Oct 09 2013 fer
- Kagamin (3/21) Oct 08 2013 Should it be really like that? If you just declare Coord struct,
- Matt Soucy (6/30) Oct 08 2013 No, that's intentional. The idea was to show the possibility of nested
- Jesse Phillips (5/28) Oct 08 2013 It is correct. A message defined in another is just namespacing
- Matt Soucy (5/7) Oct 09 2013 Exactly, I didn't even bother planning out support for them.
Hello, all- I'd like to present a library that I've been working on on-and-off for the last couple of months. Protocol Buffers are a format produced by Google that acts as an Interface Description Language for serializable data. Basically, given a file containing lines like: message Point { optional int32 x =3D 1 [default=3D166]; required int32 y =3D 2; optional string label =3D 3; message Coord { required int32 a =3D 1; required int32 b =3D 2; } } You can get a structure that behaves as: struct Point { int x=3D166; int y; string label; struct Coord { int a,b; } } What's the benefit? This structure also has some useful methods for serialization and deserialization to a well-documented format - in dproto's case, the resulting data can be stored in any ubyte[]. What makes this library special? Unlike the C++/Java/Python compilers for .proto files, this library does the conversion at compile time using mixins and string manipulation. All that's needed is to add the file directories to the string imports, and then: mixin ProtocolBuffer!"point.proto"; Where can you get it? It's available as a Dub package ("dproto"), or on Github at http://github.com/msoucy/dproto dproto is licensed under the BSD 3-clause license, and I'm definitely open to suggestions for improvement - currently, a lot of the code was translated from Java and so there are some things that are quite unidiomatic. -Matt Soucy
Oct 05 2013
This is more of an FYI. I've been using/updating https://github.com/opticron/ProtocolBuffer Boost License And while it doesn't have any helper functions, it can generate source at compile time. Generates D1 code if requested Been using it to walk OSM data for no particular reason https://gist.github.com/JesseKPhillips/6051600
Oct 05 2013
On 10/05/2013 06:20 PM, Jesse Phillips wrote:This is more of an FYI. I've been using/updating https://github.com/opticron/ProtocolBuffer =20 Boost License And while it doesn't have any helper functions, it can generate source at compile time. Generates D1 code if requested =20 Been using it to walk OSM data for no particular reason https://gist.github.com/JesseKPhillips/6051600Thanks for the tip - I actually did find this one when I started using this, however I found it on another page that hadn't been updated (that I ironically can't find now), so I wrongfully assumed that it was abandoned. I did find the github page, but I wasn't thrilled by it. Pros for opticron's: Much more idiomatic code Supports D1 Much better unit tests Pros for mine (highly based on opinion): Exposes slightly more convenient helpers (In my opinion) slightly easier to read Generated code looks like a POD struct, though with some "hidden" attributes (optional variables support .clean(), .exists(), instead of looking like myStruct.foo_exists()) Basically, mine is much more simplistic, which is both good and bad. I'd like to improve mine a bit more, and the one you pointed me at is pretty good. It gave me some things to improve on.
Oct 08 2013
On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 20:50:22 UTC, Matt Soucy wrote:Thanks for the tip - I actually did find this one when I started using this, however I found it on another page that hadn't been updated (that I ironically can't find now), so I wrongfully assumed that it was abandoned. I did find the github page, but I wasn't thrilled by it.You're thinking: https://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuffer I've been updating it from thatPros for opticron's: Much more idiomatic code Supports D1 Much better unit tests Pros for mine (highly based on opinion): Exposes slightly more convenient helpers (In my opinion) slightly easier to read Generated code looks like a POD struct, though with some "hidden" attributes (optional variables support .clean(), .exists(), instead of looking like myStruct.foo_exists())For the D2 output I've got it really close to POD. It declares fields as Nullable!T meaning myStruct.foo.isNull would check availability. I was intending to distinguish required/optional with this, but that would remove error checking (which I don't think is there yet).Basically, mine is much more simplistic, which is both good and bad. I'd like to improve mine a bit more, and the one you pointed me at is pretty good. It gave me some things to improve on.Go for it, have fun.
Oct 09 2013
On 10/09/2013 10:38 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 20:50:22 UTC, Matt Soucy wrote:Thanks for the tip - I actually did find this one when I started using=tthis, however I found it on another page that hadn't been updated (tha=ferI ironically can't find now), so I wrongfully assumed that it was abandoned. I did find the github page, but I wasn't thrilled by it.=20 You're thinking: https://256.makerslocal.org/wiki/index.php/ProtocolBuf=I've been updating it from that =20Exactly, that's the page! All I remembered about the location was that it was a wiki with a number in the URL...Pros for opticron's: Much more idiomatic code Supports D1 Much better unit tests Pros for mine (highly based on opinion): Exposes slightly more convenient helpers (In my opinion) slightly easier to read Generated code looks like a POD struct, though with some "hidden" attributes (optional variables support .clean(), .exists(), instead of=slooking like myStruct.foo_exists())=20 For the D2 output I've got it really close to POD. It declares fields a=Nullable!T meaning myStruct.foo.isNull would check availability. I was intending to distinguish required/optional with this, but that would remove error checking (which I don't think is there yet). =20'dBasically, mine is much more simplistic, which is both good and bad. I=tylike to improve mine a bit more, and the one you pointed me at is pret=--=20 Matt Soucy http://msoucy.me/good. It gave me some things to improve on.=20 Go for it, have fun.
Oct 09 2013
On Saturday, 5 October 2013 at 20:56:21 UTC, Matt Soucy wrote:message Point { optional int32 x = 1 [default=166]; required int32 y = 2; optional string label = 3; message Coord { required int32 a = 1; required int32 b = 2; } } You can get a structure that behaves as: struct Point { int x=166; int y; string label; struct Coord { int a,b; } }Should it be really like that? If you just declare Coord struct, it doesn't place a Coord instance in Point.
Oct 08 2013
On 10/08/2013 04:11 AM, Kagamin wrote:On Saturday, 5 October 2013 at 20:56:21 UTC, Matt Soucy wrote:No, that's intentional. The idea was to show the possibility of nested structs. You can create a Coord with: auto c =3D Point.Coord(); I admit the example is kind of poor, though. -Matt Soucymessage Point { optional int32 x =3D 1 [default=3D166]; required int32 y =3D 2; optional string label =3D 3; message Coord { required int32 a =3D 1; required int32 b =3D 2; } } You can get a structure that behaves as: struct Point { int x=3D166; int y; string label; struct Coord { int a,b; } }=20 Should it be really like that? If you just declare Coord struct, it doesn't place a Coord instance in Point.
Oct 08 2013
On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 08:11:34 UTC, Kagamin wrote:On Saturday, 5 October 2013 at 20:56:21 UTC, Matt Soucy wrote:It is correct. A message defined in another is just namespacing as it is in D. If you want to include the type then the message needs a field of that type. Groups are a way to combine this, but they are deprecated so who'd want to support that.message Point { optional int32 x = 1 [default=166]; required int32 y = 2; optional string label = 3; message Coord { required int32 a = 1; required int32 b = 2; } } You can get a structure that behaves as: struct Point { int x=166; int y; string label; struct Coord { int a,b; } }Should it be really like that? If you just declare Coord struct, it doesn't place a Coord instance in Point.
Oct 08 2013
On 10/09/2013 01:55 AM, Jesse Phillips wrote:Groups are a way to combine this, but they are deprecated so who'd want to support that.Exactly, I didn't even bother planning out support for them. --=20 Matt Soucy http://msoucy.me/
Oct 09 2013