Introduce MessageReflector to enable alternative protobuf runtimes #132
Conversation
|
|
andrewparmet
changed the title
andrewparmet
force-pushed
the
enable-lazy-protokt-evaluation
branch
3 times, most recently
from
35bf1b7
to
7928e60
Compare
src/main/java/build/buf/protovalidate/internal/evaluator/EnumEvaluator.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/java/build/buf/protovalidate/internal/evaluator/MessageLike.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/java/build/buf/protovalidate/internal/evaluator/MessageLike.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| return clazz.cast(value); | ||
| @Nullable | ||
| public <T> T jvmValue(Class<T> clazz) { | ||
| return null; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this not used by anyone? Could we not keep it returning the underlying Message as before?
Do we need to make smaller interfaces and only implement jvmValue on Value types that provide a valid implementation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct, this is not used. jvmValue is used for fields that protovalidate-java validates directly itself, like enums (as opposed to passing into CEL), and right now it does not do any validation on message types.
See also the changed doc on Value.jvmValue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But even if it did, it doesn't make much sense to cast the message type to anything, does it? This hints at the narrower interface you mention.
src/main/java/build/buf/protovalidate/internal/evaluator/ObjectValue.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/main/java/build/buf/protovalidate/internal/evaluator/ObjectValue.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
andrewparmet
changed the title
andrewparmet
force-pushed
the
enable-lazy-protokt-evaluation
branch
from
88684a4
to
5efed01
Compare
see #80
see open-toast/protokt@0cd3157 for what the implementation looks like given this PR