Hi,
Since
> this will break the behaviour of the Thrift plugin interface
I have one key question for you: What is the net benefit and purpose of this
change?
> It's just a struct with all-optional fields.
Correct and I alreayd expllained why this is the case. It's also explained
in more detail in the JIRA "union" ticket.
> I'd like to make it a real union
How wil this affect compatibility of the Thrift language bindungs in
general? Unions are widely used, not only for the plugin interface.
JensG
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Chet Murthy
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 12:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Is anybody using the plugin.thrift interface? I'd like to change a
little bit of it
In another email thread about unions, I've noted that the current Thrift
union implementation isn't actually a union. It's just a struct with
all-optional fields. I'd like to make it a real union, but this will break
the behaviour of the Thrift plugin interface, b/c it uses unions
(t_const_value) in a non-union way.
I would like to find people who are using this interface, and work with
them to ensure that their code doesn't break, so that I can "fix" unions.
This isn't hard, but it's a breaking change to the protocol, b/c.... well,
the current behaviour is a bug. So code that counts on it, when that bug
is fixed .... will break.
Is there anybody out there using plugin.thrift?
--chet--
P.S. I find this interface to be lovely, and want to write a new
compiler/emitter backend using it. Which is why I want to fix it first.
