Tatu Saloranta

One quick question/note here: I am hoping to get 2.12.1 released in about 1 week (on Dec 29 or 30), and I think that this issue itself is not a...

Sounds good. As to Native Type Id vs `@JsonTypeInfo`: I agree that conceptually they should be connected; what I tried to explain is how pieces as they are currently do...

This may be because in absence of specification of the root type (and since protobuf format has no concept of root type id, as far as I know), the first...

This is a known problem, and has been considered sub-optimal but harmless. There is an issue for Avro module (where this issue would belong) about possibility of upgrading Apache Avro...

Schema is only applied at encoding/decoding level and format-agnostic databinding unfortunately has no real access to it (at least at this point). You will need to mark `unnecessaryField` with `@JsonIgnore`...

Protobuf protocol is strong typed so I do not think this can be made to work. I think usual approaches are to either implement "union" type by having multiple optional...

@jfuehner That is functionality provided by some other library. Jackson protobuf implementation does not use that library. I have no idea what that does internally.

@sfackler I agree that it would make sense to both define what is expected (required), and then, if necessary, what remains implementation dependent. It sounds handling by Java implementation is...

I finally went ahead and updated Smile spec, as per: https://github.com/FasterXML/smile-format-specification/issues/17 Please let me know if this helps. I hope to tackle the encoding itself in (near-ish?) future, probably for...

@kubacech I don't think anyone is working on protobuf v3 support at this point. I don't have time myself, but can help if anyone is interested. I am not sure...