I would say that there's no question it would be useful. However, I'm
not sure how that would translate to all client languages.
A completely safe and reliable way to simulate this would be to make
a new struct for your method that has optional fields and just use
that as the only parameter to the method. Does that make sense?
-Bryan
On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:46 PM, Matthieu Imbert wrote:
structs can have optional fields, but it's not currently possible
to put
an optional parameter in a thrift function prototype.
if i understand correctly, internally function parameters passing is
made through structs, so wouldn't it be easy and usefull to add
support
to optional function parameters?
--
Matthieu
