+1. We could let the user make their own choice by providing the detail information about different protocol can do.
Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 2:22 PM bismy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Our goal is to design a transparent programming model for RPC, JAX-RS & > Spring MVC. Users do not need to know about which transport is used, and can > change it freely when deploying. > > > However, with user requirements grows, we have already provided some features > can only be used for REST. > > > My suggestion is we need to document explicitly the core programming model > that are supported by all transports, and list the specific features for > different transports. > > > Regards your problems, I think we should following protobuffer > specifications, and not support this feature. > > > If we can give some warning messages to users is preferred when they use this > feature in highway. > > > ------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------ > 发件人: "zzzwjm"<[email protected]>; > 发送时间: 2018年9月15日(星期六) 上午10:44 > 收件人: "dev"<[email protected]>; > > 主题: Re: [Discuss] new problem of protobuf > > > > seems no way to resolve this > maybe we can only log message that this schema not support highway and > select rest transport automatically > > wjm wjm <[email protected]> 于2018年9月15日周六 上午10:30写道： > > > problem is: protobuf not allow to define List<LIst>/ List<Map> > > > > wjm wjm <[email protected]> 于2018年9月15日周六 上午10:27写道： > > > >> it's not protoStuff problem. > >> protoStuff not suport serialize/deserialize without class > >> > >> Willem Jiang <[email protected]> 于2018年9月15日周六 上午10:18写道： > >> > >>> Hi Jimin, > >>> The best way is we send a PR for protoStuff to provide the solution of > >>> listList/listMap, but it may not meet the needs of our release > >>> schedule. > >>> I don't think maintain a fork version of protoStuff is good way to go. > >>> If we can wrap the protoStuff and extends it ourselves, it may meet > >>> the needs of our release schedule. > >>> > >>> Willem Jiang > >>> > >>> Twitter: willemjiang > >>> Weibo: 姜宁willem > >>> > >>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 9:36 AM wjm wjm <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > class Test { > >>> > public List<List<String>> listList; > >>> > public List<Map<String, String>> listMap; > >>> > } > >>> > > >>> > the field listList/listMap is invalid in protobuf. > >>> > ----------- > >>> > > >>> > currently we process this by protoStuff runtimeSchema, runtimeSchema > >>> > generated from Test class, and runtimeSchema can support the > >>> definition of > >>> > listList/listMap(that's protoStuff rule, not protobuf rule) > >>> > but because there are no classes in Edge service, currently we must > >>> dynamic > >>> > create new classes for protoStuff, that caused many problems. > >>> > > >>> > as we discussed before, we will not dynamic create new classes, just > >>> > serialize/deserialize by proto file, and proto file not support > >>> > the definition of listList/listMap > >>> > in this time, we must faced the compatible problem. > >>> > what's the best of our choice...... > >>> > >>
