[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-409?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12689703#action_12689703
]
David Reiss commented on THRIFT-409:
------------------------------------
bq. I thought of this as an option, but I think that will lead to suboptimal
wire performance.
It's one byte. Using a different wire format makes it impossible to implement
this incrementally. *Every* language must be able to skip unions before you
can start writing them. Plus it makes it impossible to transparently upgrade
from current "all-optional" structures.
bq. I'll admit I'm not sure on how the container thing might work, but I don't
think it will make the struct code that much more complicated.
I think it is important to figure the containers out, and I disagree about the
struct case. If you have a state that represents a union whose content could
not be read, then the code for reading a union looks *exactly* the same as the
code for reading a structure, when viewed from the perspective of the caller.
> Add "union" to Thrift
> ---------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-409
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-409
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Bryan Duxbury
> Fix For: 0.2
>
>
> It would be very helpful to have a "union" construct in Thrift. Let's decide
> on the design and then break up into sub-issues to add this feature.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
