[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-5882?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17985710#comment-17985710
]
Jean-Charles Quillet edited comment on THRIFT-5882 at 6/24/25 7:57 AM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I understand you correctly, you say that using THeaderTransport on its own,
for example with the "binary" protocol, is not a supported use case.
Can you please confirm it?
Insisting because I find the use of "header" protocol/transport very confusing,
at least for those reasons:
* I couldn't find any documentation stating that the "header" transport
shouldn't be used on its own.
* API wise, nothing stops you from using it just like any other transport. If
it is not a supported use case, then IMO the API should just not expose it.
* Additionally, it actually does work. As I couldn't find any documentation, I
did a few experiments. And I've found out that using the "binary" protocol over
the "header" transport does work. The server raises a few errors (see
THRIFT-5883) but when using the "header" protocol, the server raises the exact
same errors 🤷♂️ (see THRIFT-5884).
* I found evidence that at least another person seems to use it (see [this
comment|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-5660#commentauthor_17775188_verbose])
Edit: fixed missing comment link
was (Author: JIRAUSER310051):
If I understand you correctly, you say that using THeaderTransport on its own,
for example with the "binary" protocol, is not a supported use case.
Can you please confirm it?
Insisting because I find the use of "header" protocol/transport very confusing,
at least for those reasons:
* I couldn't find any documentation stating that the "header" transport
shouldn't be used on its own.
* API wise, nothing stops you from using it just like any other transport. If
it is not a supported use case, then IMO the API should just not expose it.
* Additionally, it actually does work. As I couldn't find any documentation, I
did a few experiments. And I've found out that using the "binary" protocol over
the "header" transport does work. The server raises a few errors (see
THRIFT-5883) but when using the "header" protocol, the server raises the exact
same errors 🤷♂️ (see THRIFT-5884).
* I found evidence that at least another person seems to use it (see this
comment)
> [c++] Is using the "header" transport supported ?
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-5882
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-5882
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: C++ - Library
> Affects Versions: 0.22.0
> Reporter: Jean-Charles Quillet
> Priority: Major
>
> In the TestServer.cpp and TestClient.cpp I can see that it is not possible to
> choose the "header" transport, one can only choose the "header" protocol.
> Then I'm wondering, is using the "header" transport a supported use case?
> For the context, I work on a cpp server that use the "buffered" transport
> over the "binary" protocol. I need it to be able to answer to clients using
> the same stack for backward compatibility as well as client which sends
> headers along requests (transport and protocol to be defined accordingly).
> I was thinking about moving the transport of the server from "buffered to
> "header". But I could not find evidence that it is a supported use case
> looking at the documentation and the test.
> See also [THRIFT-5883|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-5883]
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
