Skip to content

Support service syntax #126

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
Leonidas-from-XIV opened this issue Jun 12, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #152
Closed

Support service syntax #126

Leonidas-from-XIV opened this issue Jun 12, 2018 · 4 comments · Fixed by #152

Comments

@Leonidas-from-XIV
Copy link

I am not sure what it would compile to, but I think it would be nice if the parser at least processed it and showed syntax errors and then exited with a (disableable) error. Currently I have to comment out these sections from the .proto files, which is not terrible but it would be nice if I could just use the proto files as-is.

@mransan
Copy link
Owner

mransan commented Nov 4, 2019

I guess I could just allow parsing of the file but not generate anything.

@carlosdagos
Copy link

👍

I'm looking to try out: https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/master/etcdserver/etcdserverpb/rpc.proto -- it uses the service syntax quite heavily. I'm not sure what the expected output would be here, but would be nice. Thanks!

@mransan
Copy link
Owner

mransan commented Jan 9, 2020

Since that file only contains the service definition. I think it might be best to rather run ocaml-protoc on each of the included file to generate the type.

ocaml-protoc is solely focusing on the serialization part not the IPC part.

@c-cube
Copy link
Collaborator

c-cube commented May 16, 2020

could service files produce a functor that is parametrized by, say, a state type, and containing a state machine for query/replies? Then the user can instantiate that with the appropriate transport (such as http2, but not limited to that)?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants