diff options
author | Jon Skeet <jonskeet@google.com> | 2015-07-20 19:24:31 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Jon Skeet <jonskeet@google.com> | 2015-07-21 12:59:40 +0100 |
commit | 53c399a1d65df65e9f83a70b55041a01cf8d7489 (patch) | |
tree | bf3f738dd30295dc8ceb65478b9071d6d654e144 /csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/FieldDescriptor.cs | |
parent | 2ee4b5665520fe3245eb5e15df8bd35e0c539a07 (diff) | |
download | protobuf-53c399a1d65df65e9f83a70b55041a01cf8d7489.tar.gz protobuf-53c399a1d65df65e9f83a70b55041a01cf8d7489.tar.bz2 protobuf-53c399a1d65df65e9f83a70b55041a01cf8d7489.zip |
Revamp to reflection.
Changes in brief:
1. Descriptor is now the entry point for all reflection.
2. IReflectedMessage has gone; there's now a Descriptor property in IMessage, which is explicitly implemented (due to the static property).
3. FieldAccessorTable has gone away
4. IFieldAccessor and OneofFieldAccessor still exist; we *could* put the functionality straight into FieldDescriptor and OneofDescriptor... I'm unsure about that.
5. There's a temporary property MessageDescriptor.FieldAccessorsByFieldNumber to make the test changes small - we probably want this to go away
6. Discovery for delegates is now via attributes applied to properties and the Clear method of a oneof
I'm happy with 1-3.
4 I'm unsure about - feedback welcome.
5 will go away
6 I'm unsure about, both in design and implementation. Should we have a ProtobufMessageAttribute too? Should we find all the relevant attributes in MessageDescriptor and pass them down, to avoid an O(N^2) scenario?
Generated code changes coming in the next commit.
Diffstat (limited to 'csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/FieldDescriptor.cs')
-rw-r--r-- | csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/FieldDescriptor.cs | 28 |
1 files changed, 28 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/FieldDescriptor.cs b/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/FieldDescriptor.cs index 3d9d0d75..57378e4c 100644 --- a/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/FieldDescriptor.cs +++ b/csharp/src/Google.Protobuf/Reflection/FieldDescriptor.cs @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ #endregion using System; +using System.Linq; namespace Google.Protobuf.Reflection { @@ -45,6 +46,7 @@ namespace Google.Protobuf.Reflection private readonly MessageDescriptor containingType; private readonly OneofDescriptor containingOneof; private FieldType fieldType; + private IFieldAccessor accessor; internal FieldDescriptor(FieldDescriptorProto proto, FileDescriptor file, MessageDescriptor parent, int index) @@ -82,6 +84,8 @@ namespace Google.Protobuf.Reflection public override string Name { get { return proto.Name; } } internal FieldDescriptorProto Proto { get { return proto; } } + + public IFieldAccessor Accessor { get { return accessor; } } /// <summary> /// Maps a field type as included in the .proto file to a FieldType. @@ -287,6 +291,30 @@ namespace Google.Protobuf.Reflection { throw new DescriptorValidationException(this, "MessageSet format is not supported."); } + + accessor = CreateAccessor(); + } + + private IFieldAccessor CreateAccessor() + { + // TODO: Check the performance of this with some large protos. Each message is O(N^2) in the number of fields, + // which isn't great... + if (containingType.GeneratedType == null) + { + return null; + } + var property = containingType + .GeneratedType + .GetProperties() + .FirstOrDefault(p => p.IsDefined(typeof(ProtobufFieldAttribute), false) && + p.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(ProtobufFieldAttribute), false).Cast<ProtobufFieldAttribute>().Single().Number == FieldNumber); + if (property == null) + { + return null; + } + return IsMap ? new MapFieldAccessor(property, this) + : IsRepeated ? new RepeatedFieldAccessor(property, this) + : (IFieldAccessor) new SingleFieldAccessor(property, this); } } }
\ No newline at end of file |