It is not the lack of OO support in languages that I'm worried about. It is introducing an opaque object type. I think this would add a lot of complexity to both the implementation and semantic model of Thrift, and it would provide (in my mind) almost nothing more than using opaque i64 or binary ids.
--David Pierce, J. Will wrote: > Sorry to butt in here, but what is the specific use-case of a non-OO > Thrift language binding? Of the languages in the lib/ directory, the > ones I know and love are all OO-capable. Perhaps I'm missing something > though? > > OO-happy: C++, C#, java, perl, php, py, ruby, ML... > > What non-OO language do we need a Thrift binding for? Maybe this isn't > a problem that needs a general-case solution, since OO is well > established and most new languages implement one or more forms of OO. > > - Will > > -- > J. Will Pierce, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > NE&TO OSS - Principal Application Support Engineer > AIM: WillPierceNETO > Mobile: 609-781-xxxx > > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Instances of interfaces, request contexts? > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Thorvald Natvig wrote: > > There's currently no way of doing this, as not all of the languages that > > thrift supports have the concept of objects. >
