[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3706?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15877108#comment-15877108
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on THRIFT-3706:
----------------------------------------
Github user jeking3 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/1200#discussion_r102357395
--- Diff: lib/java/test/org/apache/thrift/test/TestServer.java ---
@@ -190,7 +193,9 @@ public static void main(String [] args) {
if (protocol_type.equals("binary")) {
} else if (protocol_type.equals("compact")) {
} else if (protocol_type.equals("json")) {
- } else if (protocol_type.equals("multiplexed")) {
+ } else if (protocol_type.equals("multi")) {
--- End diff --
I did it this way to work within the spec:impl naming convention that
currently exists in make cross. See tests.json, specifically "binary:accel" or
"compact:accelc". I wanted to follow the pattern that already existed in the
test suite so we have a single use pattern, not two. In the end the behavior
is mostly the same, except by using "multi:binary" on the java server and
"binary:multi" on the c_glib client, we end up testing: c_glib (binary client)
=> java (multi server) as well as c_glib (multi client wrapping binary) => java
(multi server wrapping binary). Using the "multiplexed-binary" naming
convention would not have leveraged the existing logic in crosstest/collect.py
to make this happen.
> There's no support for Multiplexed protocol on c_glib library
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-3706
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3706
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: C glib - Library
> Affects Versions: 0.9.3
> Reporter: Gonzalo Aguilar
> Assignee: James E. King, III
> Fix For: 0.11.0
>
>
> There's no multiplexed protocol.
> I will implement the same way it's done in Java an C++
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
