i think historically there has been a no-arg constructor and one w/ all args.
imo correct behavior is one with only req'd args, and one w/ all.
rule of thumb: if it breaks cassandra, it's a bug. :)
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/3 Ted Zlatanov <t...@lifelogs.com>:
>> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:42:27 -0600 Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> GD> This seems to be a Thrift regression. It is failing to generate any
>> GD> but the no-arg constructors. I saw this about a week ago but never
>> GD> got around to filing a Thrift ticket against it.
>>
>> GD> Your best bet, other than rolling back to an older version of thrift,
>> GD> is to add the constructors yourself from the old code.
>>
>> I could also file a Thrift bug. Or are you implying you'll do it?
>
> If it is a bug. I never made time to do the research, but here is
> what seems to be happening...
>
> Optional members are not included in the constructor, required members
> are. I'm not sure if they ever were, and the constructors were just
> manually added after generation or not.
>
> E.g.,
>
> struct ColumnParent1 {
> 3: required string column_family,
> 4: optional binary super_column,
> }
>
> generates:
>
> public ColumnParent1(String column_family)
> {
> this();
> this.column_family = column_family;
> }
>
> whereas:
>
> struct ColumnParent3 {
> 3: required string column_family,
> 4: required binary super_column,
> }
>
> generates:
>
> public ColumnParent3(String column_family, byte[] super_column)
> {
> this();
> this.column_family = column_family;
> this.super_column = super_column;
> }
>
>
> Changing the optional fields to required solves the problem and
> creates the necessary constructors, or the required constructors can
> be added.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm a thrift noob too. Old-timers, what is the correct
> behavior?
>
> Gary.
>
