+1 Willem Jiang <[email protected]> 于2018年9月15日周六 下午2:35写道：
> +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...... > > >>> > > >> >
