[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-409?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12750169#action_12750169
]
David Reiss commented on THRIFT-409:
------------------------------------
This seems good. I'm pretty sure there is one more bug, but it is not a
blocker for me if it is not a blocker for you. As you are aware, you don't
verify that that the second field header is actually the stop field. As a
result, if someone sends you a struct with more than one field (like, a C++
client that has non-nullable fields and currently ignores the union/struct
distinction) that you expect to be a union, you will desynchronize. I think
the simplest fix would be to check it and throw an exception if it is not the
stop field. You could also
There is probably a similar problem if you attempt to deserialize a struct with
no fields.
> 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
> Assignee: Bryan Duxbury
> Fix For: 0.2
>
> Attachments: one_rule.diff, thrift-409-v2.patch, thrift-409-v3.patch,
> thrift-409-v4.patch, thrift-409-v5.patch, thrift-409-v6.patch,
> thrift-409-v7.patch, thrift-409-v8.patch, thrift-409-v9.patch,
> thrift-409.patch
>
>
> 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.
