lingo.lol is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for linguists, philologists, and other lovers of languages.

Server stats:

67
active users

#protobuf

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Larry Garfield<p>PHP friends. I am looking to experiment with Protobuf as a way to define an API, for which we'll want code-generation for both (modern) PHP and Javascript/TypeScript. What's your recommendation? I'm finding lots of decade-old projects...</p><p>Alternatively, is there tooling to generate Protobuf off of PHP code/attributes, the way OpenAPI can?</p><p><a href="https://phpc.social/tags/PHP" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PHP</span></a> <a href="https://phpc.social/tags/Protobuf" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Protobuf</span></a> <a href="https://phpc.social/tags/Javascript" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Javascript</span></a></p>
Ryan Kennedy<p>Is there a good, modern instance out there of a tutorial/project with shared Protobuf types being integrated into a Go project that depends on those types?</p><p>e.g. I have a Go repo github.com/organization/application1, which depends on types from github.com/organization/protos. Assume I may also have a Python repo github.com/organization/application2, which also depends on the protos.</p><p>Full soup to nuts. None of this handwaving through the important parts, which is pervasive in virtually every StackOverflow link that shows up when searching for related details. It should include explanations for where and how code gets generated.</p><p>It’s astonishing (not in the good way) that this is not documented anywhere on protobuf.dev.</p><p><a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/Golang" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Golang</span></a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/ProtocolBuffers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ProtocolBuffers</span></a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/Protobuf" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Protobuf</span></a> <a href="https://hachyderm.io/tags/Protobufs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Protobufs</span></a></p>
Eugene Yokota<p>schema compilation like <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/protobuf" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>protobuf</span></a> at a glance forms a functor-like graph, for example given schemata `A → B → C`, the generated Java targets will form `F[A] -&gt; F[B] -&gt; F[C]`, and Bazel aspect provides an elegant solution to express this. but in practice, for some schema `A`, there are well-known precompiled JARs on Maven Central, for example `com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java` contains the class files for `com/google/protobuf`.</p><p>I'm not sure if there's a name for this problem. double accounting?</p>