[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-2429?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13976207#comment-13976207
]
Ben Sigelman commented on THRIFT-2429:
--------------------------------------
Per my thoughts above, I'm in favor of something like option 1. For what it's
worth, I wouldn't define a new operator for such a special case... Something
like {{optional i32 field_name = xyz 42}}, where {{xyz}} would be some token of
your choice... "del" came up earlier, though there are plenty of options!
Option 2 has all of the drawbacks I mentioned earlier in this thread. It makes
the default value an implicit part of the wire protocol, and to my mind that's
an avoidable gotcha.
My two cents!
> 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)
