[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-110?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12623914#action_12623914
]
Noble Paul commented on THRIFT-110:
-----------------------------------
bq. Both are surmountable, but I believe that they add more complexity than
value to Thrift, compared to the union-like-struct-based approach.
I know what the types are and the types are the ones which are already defined
in the IDL (one or many of them). So why should I explicitly create another
union like structure. I see it as work which must be done by compiler. That
actually consumes more space than a typebyte+value encoding for items
bq.but I believe that they add more complexity than value to Thrift
This can decide on whether thrift is usable or not for us. All the modern
languages support this kind of collections and if they cannot use it they will
have to look for alternatives
> A more compact format
> ----------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-110
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-110
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Noble Paul
>
> Thrift is not very compact in writing out data as (say protobuf) . It does
> not have the concept of variable length integers and various other
> optimizations possible . In Solr we use a lot of such optimizations to make a
> very compact payload. Thrift has a lot common with that format.
> It is all done in a single class
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/solr/trunk/src/java/org/apache/solr/common/util/NamedListCodec.java?revision=685640&view=markup
> The other optimizations include writing type/value in same byte, very fast
> writes of Strings, externalizable strings etc
> We could use a thrift format for non-java clients and I would like to see it
> as compact as the current java version
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
