On Oct 19, 2009, at 1:25 , Kenton Varda wrote: > You must still call the callback after calling setFailed(), but the > message passed to the callback may be ignored.
That's how I decided to implement it, although I still return whatever message gets passed to callback.run(), since that was easier than special casing it. Thanks for the clarification. > Unfortunately this interface is kind of messed up right now. We'd > like to change it so that the callback has two methods: one for > normal return and one for failure. That would probably make more sense. Calling callback.run() or callback.fail() would probably be clearer and less error prone (eg. calling setFailed() and forgetting to call callback.run()). I would definitely accept a "breaking" API change like this, but I can understand that others who are using the RPC interface may not agree with me. Evan -- Evan Jones http://evanjones.ca/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
