com.google.protobuf.descriptor
MessageOptions
Related Docs:
object MessageOptions
| package descriptor
com.google.protobuf.descriptor
Set true to use the old proto1 MessageSet wire format for extensions. This is provided for backwards-compatibility with the MessageSet wire format. You should not use this for any other reason: It's less efficient, has fewer features, and is more complicated. The message must be defined exactly as follows: message Foo { option message_set_wire_format = true; extensions 4 to max; } Note that the message cannot have any defined fields; MessageSets only have extensions. All extensions of your type must be singular messages; e.g. they cannot be int32s, enums, or repeated messages. Because this is an option, the above two restrictions are not enforced by the protocol compiler.
Disables the generation of the standard "descriptor()" accessor, which can conflict with a field of the same name. This is meant to make migration from proto1 easier; new code should avoid fields named "descriptor".
Is this message deprecated? Depending on the target platform, this can emit Deprecated annotations for the message, or it will be completely ignored; in the very least, this is a formalization for deprecating messages.
Whether the message is an automatically generated map entry type for the maps field. For maps fields: map<KeyType, ValueType> map_field = 1; The parsed descriptor looks like: message MapFieldEntry { option map_entry = true; optional KeyType key = 1; optional ValueType value = 2; } repeated MapFieldEntry map_field = 1; Implementations may choose not to generate the map_entry=true message, but use a native map in the target language to hold the keys and values. The reflection APIs in such implementions still need to work as if the field is a repeated message field. NOTE: Do not set the option in .proto files. Always use the maps syntax instead. The option should only be implicitly set by the proto compiler parser.
The parser stores options it doesn't recognize here. See above.
Is this message deprecated? Depending on the target platform, this can emit Deprecated annotations for the message, or it will be completely ignored; in the very least, this is a formalization for deprecating messages.
Whether the message is an automatically generated map entry type for the maps field.
Whether the message is an automatically generated map entry type for the maps field. For maps fields: map<KeyType, ValueType> map_field = 1; The parsed descriptor looks like: message MapFieldEntry { option map_entry = true; optional KeyType key = 1; optional ValueType value = 2; } repeated MapFieldEntry map_field = 1; Implementations may choose not to generate the map_entry=true message, but use a native map in the target language to hold the keys and values. The reflection APIs in such implementions still need to work as if the field is a repeated message field. NOTE: Do not set the option in .proto files. Always use the maps syntax instead. The option should only be implicitly set by the proto compiler parser.
Set true to use the old proto1 MessageSet wire format for extensions.
Set true to use the old proto1 MessageSet wire format for extensions. This is provided for backwards-compatibility with the MessageSet wire format. You should not use this for any other reason: It's less efficient, has fewer features, and is more complicated. The message must be defined exactly as follows: message Foo { option message_set_wire_format = true; extensions 4 to max; } Note that the message cannot have any defined fields; MessageSets only have extensions. All extensions of your type must be singular messages; e.g. they cannot be int32s, enums, or repeated messages. Because this is an option, the above two restrictions are not enforced by the protocol compiler.
Disables the generation of the standard "descriptor()" accessor, which can conflict with a field of the same name.
Disables the generation of the standard "descriptor()" accessor, which can conflict with a field of the same name. This is meant to make migration from proto1 easier; new code should avoid fields named "descriptor".
The parser stores options it doesn't recognize here.
The parser stores options it doesn't recognize here. See above.
Set true to use the old proto1 MessageSet wire format for extensions. This is provided for backwards-compatibility with the MessageSet wire format. You should not use this for any other reason: It's less efficient, has fewer features, and is more complicated. The message must be defined exactly as follows: message Foo { option message_set_wire_format = true; extensions 4 to max; } Note that the message cannot have any defined fields; MessageSets only have extensions. All extensions of your type must be singular messages; e.g. they cannot be int32s, enums, or repeated messages. Because this is an option, the above two restrictions are not enforced by the protocol compiler.
Disables the generation of the standard "descriptor()" accessor, which can conflict with a field of the same name. This is meant to make migration from proto1 easier; new code should avoid fields named "descriptor".
Is this message deprecated? Depending on the target platform, this can emit Deprecated annotations for the message, or it will be completely ignored; in the very least, this is a formalization for deprecating messages.
Whether the message is an automatically generated map entry type for the maps field. For maps fields: map<KeyType, ValueType> map_field = 1; The parsed descriptor looks like: message MapFieldEntry { option map_entry = true; optional KeyType key = 1; optional ValueType value = 2; } repeated MapFieldEntry map_field = 1; Implementations may choose not to generate the map_entry=true message, but use a native map in the target language to hold the keys and values. The reflection APIs in such implementions still need to work as if the field is a repeated message field. NOTE: Do not set the option in .proto files. Always use the maps syntax instead. The option should only be implicitly set by the proto compiler parser.
The parser stores options it doesn't recognize here. See above.