New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Shifting to Protobuf Serialization - Cleaned #3245
Shifting to Protobuf Serialization - Cleaned #3245
Conversation
… yet implemented.
22aadc9
to
d5da746
Compare
So, can this be merged? I'll work on these files, and use this interface, in the next few PRs, so I need it to proceed! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good to me - @cortesi?
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@ | |||
syntax='proto2'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a particular reason why we went with proto2 and not proto3?
(both is fine with me, just curious)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nothing in particular. I found more documentation and examples for proto2 syntax, and I didn't want to preclude required fields in messages.
This should be clean and ready to be merged. I have checked out tmp.sqlite from both repo and history (.sqlite files are now ignored by git) and refactored DbHandler class into the righteous DBHandler.
Let me know if anything else has to be addressed.