Hi,
great question!
For example, if I define a method call "foo" in my service definition in
the .thrift file,
it creates a method "fooAsync" in the netstd client and "foo" on the Java
service.
The Async postfix is actually a (compatibility) leftover from the csharp
version of the library which suppotred both, synchrfonous (without the
"Async") and await/async style calls. To distinguish between the two, the
Async postfix was added. So theoretically we could remove it (patch
appreciated) but we need to keep the old behaviour available with some sort
of a compatiblity switch.
So I suppose I could write a shell script on our build server to fixup the
generated .cs files at build time, but that seems cumbersome.
No you're not. Why would you want to waste time doing that? The call works,
because the wire format is 100% identical, despite the name it has in the C#
sources. If you find a case where it does not work: file a ticket and add
the test case so we can reproduce it.
I have tried manually changing the generated code from:
await oprot.WriteMessageBeginAsync(new TMessage("fooASync", ...
I can't find that in the code. Where does that come from? And why it is
spelled "ASync"? We are of course not responsible for any changes you (or
someone else) made to the compiler on your own.
This is what is actually generated (current master, should be same with any
0.14.x or any previous version supporting netstd):
C# call
await OutputProtocol.WriteMessageBeginAsync(new TMessage("Foo",
TMessageType.Call, SeqId), cancellationToken);
C# processor:
public AsyncProcessor(IAsync iAsync, ILogger<AsyncProcessor> logger =
default) {
// ... some stuff omitted
processMap_["Foo"] = Foo_ProcessAsync;
}
Java call:
prot.writeMessageBegin(new
org.apache.thrift.protocol.TMessage("Foo",
org.apache.thrift.protocol.TMessageType.CALL, 0));
Java processor:
private static ... getProcessMap(...) {
processMap.put("Foo", new Foo());
return processMap;
}
Have fun,.
JensG
