I will make this issue here to provide a central place to track and discuss the current issue we're facing with the google protobufs
Sources: PR: #16, Issue: #15
I think @xloem proposed to make a separate Descriptor Pool if I understood you correctly? I have to admit I am not deep enough into Protobuf to fully understand if that would be the best solution in this case.
Regarding the Pull request #16. You've added the google protobuf files but I think they are mainly unused. When compiling the protobufs the compiler will always translate google.protobuf to the google package and not the files in the repository.
The alternative would be to remove the protobuf dependency completely, which I believe would be the best solution. However, we need to figure out a way for the descriptor pool before I guess.
All in all I still find these protobufs very confusing...
I will make this issue here to provide a central place to track and discuss the current issue we're facing with the google protobufs
Sources: PR: #16, Issue: #15
I think @xloem proposed to make a separate Descriptor Pool if I understood you correctly? I have to admit I am not deep enough into Protobuf to fully understand if that would be the best solution in this case.
Regarding the Pull request #16. You've added the google protobuf files but I think they are mainly unused. When compiling the protobufs the compiler will always translate google.protobuf to the google package and not the files in the repository.
The alternative would be to remove the protobuf dependency completely, which I believe would be the best solution. However, we need to figure out a way for the descriptor pool before I guess.
All in all I still find these protobufs very confusing...