[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-2429?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13975926#comment-13975926
]
Randy Abernethy commented on THRIFT-2429:
-----------------------------------------
Hey Aleksey,
I understand and respect your view.
So it sounds like we have two contenders for the implementation of the
no-serialize-default feature.
*1) Use =? for reader side defaults*
PROS:
- Easy to explain, =? always means do not serialize the default (though
implementations may serialize defaults as a fall back).
- Doesn't tamper with = defaults, leaving them backward compatible and
consistent (= maintains its "always serialize the default" meaning)
- Lets the user choose any combination of requiredness and default style they
want (can be applied to normal and optional in particular)
CONS:
- May be viewed as inconsistent with required fields
- Introduces a new operator in the IDL
- Enables (keeps) combinations that are only valuable in some fairly exotic
cases
*2) Use optional fields with = default values as reader side default*
PROS:
- Adds no new IDL syntax
- Creates a valuable feature out of the otherwise fairly redundant combination
of optional fields with default values (which are currently almost exactly like
normal fields with default values)
CONS:
- Leaves no way to get reader side default functionality with normal
requiredness
- Causes = to work differently with different requiredness, making the default
value function harder to understand
Aleksey makes a good case for optional with = default. I am on the =? side of
the fence but I will happily support the optional+default choice if that is
what the cognoscenti prefer (the spread is pretty narrow).
Please chime in if you see other pros/cons or disagree with those above. Would
be good if we could make a call on this and move forward in the short term, so
voice your opinion if you have a preference.
Best,
Randy
> 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: default, optional, required
>
> 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)
