On 2010-07-03, at 22:55 , Michael Walsh wrote:
Hi James,
The official code repo is on apache svn. The current release is
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/thrift/branches/0.3.0
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/thrift/branches/0.3.x/doc/
thrift.bnf has the same internal modification date as the git clone.
I don't know why we have any git resources at all as they just seem
to keep confusing people.
the points of confusion are
1. binary encodings appear to stretch the proviso, that "the order of
elements could be in some cases rearranged" to eliminate the name
constituent from the field-begin entirely. perhaps because, without
reordering the clauses, it would be impossible to recognize a binary
T_STOP=0?
2. the message-type, as transposed to be the first constituent of a
message-begin appears to actually itself have two constituents: the
protocol identifier and the protocol version number. is the protocol
identifier domain documented?
3. the field-type names appear, but between the slee, etal paper, the
wiki, and the code (at least from reading the cpp, java, and ruby
implementation) the domains for t_string and t_binary are never
conclusively specified. t_string implies at base unsigned 8-bit,
while descriptions of t_binary imply signed.
4. is there a specification for standard encodings for the various
symbolic indicators for binary protocols?
M
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 Jul 2010, at 19:11, james anderson <james.ander...@setf.de>
wrote:
good evening;
the git-hub mirrored bnf appears inaccurate at least in the
message-begin production.
is there a more up-to-date version?
