Ted Dunning wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser<[email protected]> wrote:
Andrew Purtell wrote:
That might be because protobuf documentation, and I'd assume accumulated
practice based upon it, warns against using generated pbuf objects
directly
as model classes. (See the "Protocol Buffers and O-O Design" callout on
https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/javatutorial.)
Assuming that's the case, that makes sense. It was just not clear to me if
Julian and I were just talking past each other or if there was some fallacy
I was suggesting.
This differentiation between wire protocol and API is something that I have
seen repeatedly in ex-Googlers. I was a bit curious since it seemed nice to
have one definition for both levels.
My opinion has verged to be 100% with the Google philosophy of separation
after watching how the MapR internals work. This kind of separation has
really paid off in many instances. Having too tight a lock between wire and
API would have been nearly disastrous for either comprehensibility of the
API or efficiency of the wire. I can't share specifics, but if second-hand
opinions are useful, you now have mine.
Absolutely, opinions are very useful here, Ted. Much appreciated. I'm
trying to feel my way through the cleanest approach without stepping on
architected toes.
