protobuf

ProtoBuf

I reject the idea of having to use a compiler for ProtoBuf. I think you should be able to Marshal and Unmarshal just like JSON. And really, that should be possible. If they had only added a single extra wiretype for messages, ProtoBuf would be more or less self describing. At any rate, I want a package that can decode arbitrary ProtoBuf, and can also encode some Map or Struct into ProtoBuf as well.

• https://github.com/golang/protobuf/issues/1370
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41348512/protobuf-unmarshal-unknown

Is it a string, bytes, or a sub-type? you don't know. You might be able to figure it out for a specific input, like when reverse engineering a gRPC api, but not in general.

You can generalize this. string, bytes and message all get passed as wire type 2 (length-delimited). But you can differ between strings and bytes [1], and not all bytes slices are valid messages. So you can run those tests, and if you still have overlap, then you can just parse the data as both types, and add both types to the output under the same field number, using the type as the discriminator. This wouldnt work with protowire.Type [2], as again it uses the same type for all three, so any implementation would need to create a new string, bytes and message type.

1. https://github.com/golang/go/blob/go1.17.6/src/net/http/sniff.go#L297-L309
2. https://godocs.io/google.golang.org/protobuf/encoding/protowire#Type

what's the wire type?

https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/encoding#structure

Why would you even want it vs using something else like JSON or BSON?

If it was my choice, I would never use ProtoBuf ever again. Its an awful format. However some servers I deal with, require ProtoBuf request body, and return ProtoBuf response body.

why don't you use this plus some protowire.EncodeTag

Thats a good idea, but in my case I wanted an implementation that treats the field name as first class citizen, so I ended up doing something like this:

type Tag struct {
   protowire.Number
   Name string
}

Then I can use the string either as a type discriminator, or as the field name associated with the field number.