[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-5882?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17985794#comment-17985794
]
Jean-Charles Quillet commented on THRIFT-5882:
----------------------------------------------
Okay. Thanks for the insight of the implementation 🙏. I really wish that
information were available somewhere.
However, I still find it confusing that the public API allows the user to use
the "header" transport, and that it actually works despite the fact that, IIUC,
it is not supposed to be used that way.
So, to make it plain clear, can you please answer yes or no to that question?
{quote}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?
{quote}
> [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)
