How about flags support what option go_package does

[rmrf]

I have go through #39, so I'm thinking is that a better way to let protoc support this kind of flag ?

 protoc -I <somewhere> --go_out=go_package=github.com/rmrf/mypackage/pb/foo:. foo.proto

and this have same effort with: add bellow into foo.proto file

option go_package = "github.com/rmrf/mypackage/pb/foo";

or does protoc already have simillary way: which do not need modify .proto file, but generate specific import path package.

[cybrcodr]

I think following invocation should do the same (assuming that foo.proto is in current directory) ...

protoc --go_out=Mfoo.proto=github.com/rmrf/mypackage/pb/foo:. foo.proto

I think specifying inside the proto seems cleaner though and keeps the protoc invocation simpler.

[rmrf]

@cybrcodr your invocation is better, Thanks

About why not specify it inside proto, what I'm thinking is: unlike JAVA's java_package com.rmrf.foo, this kind of package naming covention is uniq and does not have relationship with: how to reach the package src code.

Golang's package name have that feature which java don't have.

If I want to generate the golang code for this .proto file, what I'm really need is put this generated golang code into my project, which not only have package name, but also means how to reach it. espestially when I'm working with other team's proto file repo: I can't change theirs .proto file, but I need generate golang src code base on them - and integrate into my project (with my package namespace and url reach way)

That's why this confuse me, I can't figure out better solution yet.

[cybrcodr]

A proto message type should be unique within a binary, unless you're assuming the use of type aliasing or unless it is hidden (internal or vendored), the Go import path of a message type does matter. If you are using another library that uses the same proto message type as your library/binary does and you pass/receive it as argument from that dependent library, then that message type should be the same. That's the reason why I suggested having it in the source proto file for specifying the package path+name, but can certainly be done via invocation as well, in which case, need to make sure that both parties are using the same invocation or same generated code.

Hope that helps.

[cybrcodr]

I'm closing this issue, but feel free to ask more questions.