3 ms·

I was curious about this claim, so I searched for oneof in the googleapis repo[0][1]. There's a bunch of results, all in proto3, and many were committed for th

I was curious about this claim, so I searched for oneof in the googleapis repo[0][1]. There's a bunch of results, all in proto3, and many were committed for the first time (at least publicly) in the last 4-6 months. So I don't believe this is true. From a safety perspective, tagged union types, which oneofs are, are incredibly useful and really should be used more often. [0]: https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/search?q=oneof&unscoped_q=oneof https://github.com/googleapis/googleapis/search?q=oneof&unsc... [1]: I have no idea what this repo actually does, to be honest, but it appears authoritative about something, and appears to be public grpc apis Google exposes.

kenshaw 8y ago
In proto3 all fields are optional. As such, I don't see the need for "oneof" since you should check in business logic whether or not the field is there. By using "oneof" you are declaring two different types can be the same name. It's a philosophical argument that you're free to disagree with.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  In good proto2, all fields are optional, that doesn't negate the uses of one of, which provide compile time validation instead of runtime, which is the important part.
  - kenshaw 8y ago
    Yes, I understand how this would be done. It's a design philosophy. If you'd like Gunk to support "oneof", we're open to Pull Requests!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]