move protobuf code into subpackages to improve GoDoc organization and look

[whyrusleeping]

Looking at a godoc for ipfs shows a bunch of ugly, automatically generated text and code from the protobuf tool. (see the dht package). We should move the protobuf code into its own pacakges in order to separate the documentation out better

[jbenet]

Yeah seriously. Gross.

—
Sent from Mailbox

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Jeromy Johnson [email protected]
wrote:

Looking at a godoc for ipfs shows a bunch of ugly, automatically generated text and code from the protobuf tool. (see the dht package). We should move the protobuf code into its own pacakges in order to separate the documentation out better

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#184

[cryptix]

03:32 <cryptix> is there a way to suppress the autogenerated documentation from protobuf? it messes with the mine 
03:35 <Tv`> cryptix: you could put the protobuf generated code in a subpackage
03:37 <cryptix> Tv`: hmm yeah.. looking at the help of protoc looks like the way to go but it feels icky
03:38 <Tv`> *shrug* that's what i've done, just because the generated types are in general clumsy
03:38 <Tv`> XXX_unrecognized :(

sadly there seem's to be no trick around it...

[jbenet]

Yeah... On the bright side, the objects could then be used like pb.Node

[btc]

all done except for one.

blocks.bloom

https://github.com/jbenet/go-ipfs/tree/51879e96402937fe57caed875dc55c50671241a4/blocks/bloom

Doesn't have a generated pb.go companion. I suppose this is a work-in-progress? @whyrusleeping

[whyrusleeping]

Yeah... That is WIP, I forgot about that.

[btc]

Okay. Will close this issue for now.

woohoo