[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-635?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12901053#action_12901053
]
Bryan Duxbury commented on THRIFT-635:
--------------------------------------
I like the idea of this patch - harmonizing camel vs nocamel modes - but I'm
not sure that we should edit people's field names. My thinking has been that
the user is quite capable of choosing a capitalization scheme for their field
names on their own, and that the point of the nocamel mode was to stop the
compiler from assuming otherwise.
Does anyone else think that we should enforce camelCased accessors?
> CamelCase methods in Java code generator
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-635
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-635
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java - Compiler
> Reporter: Michael Andrews
> Priority: Trivial
> Attachments: 001-java-CamelCase-fix.patch
>
>
> thrift --gen java:camel doesn't generate idiomatic names for getters and
> setters. For instance:
> struct SlicePredicate {
> 1: optional list<binary> column_names,
> 2: optional SliceRange slice_range,
> }
> has generated getters and setters:
> getSlice_range
> setSlice_range
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
