[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-5105?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17053212#comment-17053212
]
Zezeng Wang commented on THRIFT-5105:
-------------------------------------
I agree,
[https://github.com/apache/thrift/blob/882d48da5d5db439c11029f46006c71f6429ae2c/lib/java/src/org/apache/thrift/protocol/TBinaryProtocol.java#L432-L452]
and
[https://github.com/apache/thrift/blob/042580f53441efe1bc5c80c89351fcb30740659e/lib/cpp/src/thrift/protocol/TBinaryProtocol.tcc#L424-L429]
both are actually trying to achieve the same function,but looks different.
I personally think the implementation of cpp is better.
> Very minor issue: why are the values for "unlimited" different between Java
> and cpp?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-5105
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-5105
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: C++ - Library
> Affects Versions: 0.13.0
> Reporter: Mario Emmenlauer
> Priority: Trivial
>
> I've seen that in Java,
> [https://github.com/apache/thrift/blob/882d48da5d5db439c11029f46006c71f6429ae2c/lib/java/src/org/apache/thrift/protocol/TBinaryProtocol.java#L34]
> defines a constant {{NO_LENGTH_LIMIT = -1}} to initialize string_limit and
> container_limit of TBinaryProtocol. In C++ on the other hand, the default
> values (I guess they represent unlimited) are set in
> [https://github.com/apache/thrift/blob/042580f53441efe1bc5c80c89351fcb30740659e/lib/cpp/src/thrift/protocol/TBinaryProtocol.h#L47]
> with {{string_limit_(0)}}.
>
> This is really no big issue but for consistency it may be nicer if all
> implementation use the same default for "unlimited"?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
