[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14737998#comment-14737998
]
Xiaoshuang LU edited comment on THRIFT-3320 at 9/10/15 5:22 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jens, thanks for your comments.
Suppose a scenario, let's say, clients use "TMultiplexedProtocol"s while
servers run "TMultiplexedProcessor"s. The "TMessage"s encapsulated in requests
appear like (name = serviceName:procedureName, type = call, seqid =
blah_blah_blah). However response "TMessage"s lack serviceName in their name
fields. I propose that both request and response "TMessage"s shall have the
same values except their type fields.
was (Author: in-chief):
Hi Jens, thanks for your comments.
Suppose clients use "TMultiplexedProtocol"s while servers run
"TMultiplexedProcessor"s. The "TMessage"s encapsulated in requests appear like
(name = serviceName:procedureName, type = call, seqid = blah_blah_blah).
However response "TMessage"s lack serviceName in their name fields. I propose
that both request and response "TMessage"s shall have the same format except
their type fields.
> TMessages of multiplexed service responses of should include service names
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-3320
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3320
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: Java - Library
> Affects Versions: 0.9, 0.9.1, 0.9.2
> Reporter: Xiaoshuang LU
> Attachments: THRIFT-3320.patch
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
