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/WellKnownTypes/Type.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/WellKnownTypes/Type.cs')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions