[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-303?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12670193#action_12670193
]
David Reiss commented on THRIFT-303:
------------------------------------
Theoretically, it is necessary for optional fields to be omitted, but we can
skip it until someone needs it. Won't you need to implement this anyway as
part of the setters? Is it really hard to have it be a separate method? We
can leave it private and if someone needs to use it in non-beans, make it
public in non-beans.
> Changes to __isset interface
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-303
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-303
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Compiler (Java), Library (Java)
> Reporter: Bryan Duxbury
> Assignee: Bryan Duxbury
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.1
>
>
> I think that it would make a lot of sense for us to redefine the __isset
> interface of Java generated structs. With the changes in THRIFT-297, all
> TBase objects will now have the isSet generic method as well as isMyFieldSet
> per-field isset checkers. This gives the same kind of information as direct
> access to __isset as the public field does, but has the added advantage of
> hiding the information behind a method-based interface, freeing us to do
> things like THRIFT-115 and THRIFT-116 without breaking future clients.
> Especially with the future proposition of making a release, now would be a
> great time to improve this interface.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
