Point taken... no need to shout ;) But in all seriousness you are completely correct, thanks for the input!
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually it is a VERY good solution. That you can (and should) do this is > a > major feature of Thrift which allows some level of future proofing of the > interface. > > Read the original thrift paper. You should never re-use an index for a > different purpose if there is any chance at all that old/new clients will > interact with new/old servers (i.e. anywhere in the known universe). > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Noam Wolf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > it was my understanding that the id's were a unique, sequential, index... > i > > guess it makes sense that they don't need to be sequential but if I don't > > have control over the server this might not be a good solution. > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > It might help if you changed the id number on the argument when you > > change > > > the semantics. That will let your applications fail in cases like > this. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Noam Wolf <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Basically my service call changed from > > > > > > > > doSomething(1: String request) > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > doSomething(1: Request request) > > > > > > > > So when I was calling doSomething("foo") i was seeing that error > > because > > > > the > > > > type i was passing to the service was not the correct type... > > > > > > > > hopefully this will help someone some day... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ted Dunning, CTO > > > DeepDyve > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Noam Wolf > > > > > > -- > Ted Dunning, CTO > DeepDyve > -- Best Regards, Noam Wolf
