[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-2429?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13958209#comment-13958209
]
Jens Geyer commented on THRIFT-2429:
------------------------------------
I had only a quick look over Randy's table, and it LGTM so far. The only
concern I have is at another level:
{quote}
Making defaults much like the field ordinals. Upon reflection this is probably
a reasonable bit of guidance for Thrift interface design across the board.
{quote}
That sounds reasonable, but it isn't. Defaults are differently recognized by
the average developer compared to fields IDs, or enum values, where a change
has obvious consequences. Not so with a default, because it is "only" a
default.
So let's play devil's advocate and ask the question: What's the worst thing
that will happen if someone changes a default? And should we care about that,
or is it a non-problem?
> Provide option to not write default values, rely on receiver default
> construction instead
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-2429
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-2429
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: C++ - Compiler
> Affects Versions: 0.9.1
> Reporter: Chris Stylianou
> Assignee: Randy Abernethy
> Labels: thrift
>
> Would there be any objections to a patch that does not write default values
> (essentially the same logic as the optional attributes). This obviously
> relies on the receiving application using the same IDL version to ensure the
> defaults used on object construction match the senders.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
