On 24-Jul-09, at 6:39 PM, BobV wrote: > I have a design wave going on about how to add this to the new RPC > implementation. Here's a cruddy copy-and-paste of the current state > of the document.
Bob, this is awesome! Is the plan to land this as part of deRPC, or is this a future feature that will land beyond deRPC? Also, will this be supported on methods themselves? For instance, can I mark a new method parameter as @Optional so that older clients don't need to provide it? Conversely, could we remove a parameter from a method and still support clients sending data with the old signature? One more question... Is it possible to incorporate the idea of "numbered" fields into this design? This would make it much easier to interop with Thrift (and possibly protobuf), both of which use numeric keys for versioning. We'd probably write some code to output GWTRPC- compatible Thrift objects from our IDL, which means that we'd have numeric keys already set up and we wouldn't have to worry about versioning issues when renaming fields. Thanks, Matt. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
