On Aug 26, 2008, at 02:11, Chad Walters wrote:
<snip/>
2. That would be great. However, the current belief is that there is
a lot of special-casing for the specifics of each target language
and that it's not clear how much commonality could be found to help
here.
Well, there is a good set languages supported already.
So maybe we could make guess from those implementations.
3. The current seqid mechanism guarantees uniqueness and also allows
the seqid's to be small, which is better for the DenseProtocol and
other compact protocols.
Of course. But IIRC the sequence id is an integer internally. So is
the hash code.
4. Yep, sounds like a PITA. Does it buy that much? Can it be
supported across all the languages we are trying to support?
Does it have to be supported by the language?
I would imagine the structs to be flattened. So that means you still
end up with
the same code like today. Just with the properties of the parents
"blended in".
That means you cannot cast to the parent. But you could deserialize as
all the
different types of the hierarchy. This would be more like duck typing.
WRT 1 and 2, I would actually love to see some mechanism to allow
for the compiler to be abstracted to the point where we could
implement it in a broad choice of languages (C++, Java, Ruby, etc.)
and still produce the same target language bindings. This would free
non-C++ shops from needing the C++ tool chain. Sounds like a pretty
interesting and extensive project in and of itself -- if you can
figure out how to make this happen, more power to you.
I already have some code :)
cheers
--
Torsten
