问题
My client-server communication looks like this: there are some so called annoucements which are seperate messages used to exchange information. The idea is that annoucement is the common part of every message. Actually I suppose it will be the type of the message. The type decide what is the content. In UML class diagram Annoucement would be the class all other messages inherit.
I want to implement that idea in communication between two applications one written in C++ the other in C#. I thought I could write a message that contain one field with the type if the message (an enum field) . All additional information relevant to the type would be implemented as an extensions.
I have found some examples how to use extensions in C++, however I have no clue how to do it in C#. I know there are interfaces IExtensible and IExtension (in protobuf-net) but how can I use them? Internet resources seem to be poor in the matter.
I suppose in the past messages in C# used to be define similiar to fashion that they are still defined in C++ apps (using proto file and protoc). Can I use the same proto file to define the message in C#? How? Will extenions be interpreted or overriden?
If I could implement extensions, I would sent a message, parse it, check the type and use approriate function to maintain it. That sounds to me cool because I wouldn't have to take care of the type of the message I was going to read - I don't have to know the type before parsing.
回答1:
There are a number of ways you could do this. I'm not actually sure extensions is the one I would leap for, but:
in your message type, you could have a set of fully defined fields for each sub-message, i.e.
base-message
{1-5} common fields
{optional 20} sub-message 1
{optional 21} sub-message 2
{optional 22} sub-message 3
{optional 23} sub-message 4
sub-message 1
{1-n} specific fields
where you would have exactly one of the sub-message object
alternatively, encapsulate the common parts inside the more specific message:
common field type
{1-n} fields
sub-message 1
{1} common field type
{2-m} specific fields
Either approach would allow you to deserialize; the second is trickier, IMO, since it requires you to know the type ahead of time. The only convenient way to do that is to prefix each with a different identifier. Personally I prefer the first. This does not, however, require extensions - since we know everything ahead of time. As it happens, the first is also how protobuf-net implements inheritance, so you could do that with type inheritance (4 concrete sub-types of an abstract base message type)and [ProtoInclude(...)]
Re extension data; protobuf-net does support that, however as mentioned in the blog this is not included in the current v2 beta. It will be there soon, but I had to put a line somewhere. It is included in the v1 (r282) download though
Note that protobuf-net is just one of several C#/.NET implementations. The wire format is the same, but you might also want to consider the directly ported version. If I had to summarise the difference I would say "protobuf-net is a .NET serializer that happens to be protobuf; protobuf-csharp-port is a protobuf serializer that happens to be .NET" - they both achieve the same end, but protobuf-net focuses on being idiomatic to C#/.NET where-as the port focuses more on having the same API. Either should work here of course.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6243362/how-to-use-extensions-from-protocol-buffers-to-maintain-general-message