s are
> essentially global, the opportunity for collision is more substantial. I
> think service ordinals offer less bang for the buck than method ordinals.
> Might make a good follow on project if method ordinals got off the ground.
>
>
>
> Nice discussion topic!
>
>
>
licity of the multiplexing implementation is attractive, I agree.
It also allows for a lot of flexibility. For now, we can simply use short
service names. In the future, I'm sure we could build something that maps
service names to unique ordinals or short strings.
Thanks,
David
> On Fri, Ap
Thrift dev,
I was wondering why the decision was made to serialize method names as
strings. A helpful thrifter on IRC (JensG) pointed me to
https://thrift.apache.org/static/files/thrift-20070401.pdf, which states
that hashing method names was considered, but was found to be problematic.
I can't a
