incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: build fails with "ant clean gen-thrift-java build"
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:24:11 GMT
either way, removing the all-args constructor is a regression.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Todd Lipcon <todd@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i think historically there has been a no-arg constructor and one w/ all
>> args.
>>
>> imo correct behavior is one with only req'd args, and one w/ all.
>>
>> I think having one with no args is good as well. The problem with having
> one with only required args is that java doesn't have keyword arguments. So,
> if you have a struct with several required members, you're going to have
> "new Foo(a,b,c,d,e,f)" for example. If the order (or names) of fields
> changes or something, you can break your app without generating a
> compilation error, whereas if you're using explicit setters, you'll catch
> it.
>
> -Todd
>
> rule of thumb: if it breaks cassandra, it's a bug. :)
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusbabek@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > 2009/12/3 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>:
>> >> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 06:42:27 -0600 Gary Dusbabek <gdusbabek@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> GD> This seems to be a Thrift regression.  It is failing to generate
any
>> >> GD> but the no-arg constructors.  I saw this about a week ago but never
>> >> GD> got around to filing a Thrift ticket against it.
>> >>
>> >> GD> Your best bet, other than rolling back to an older version of
>> thrift,
>> >> GD> is to add the constructors yourself from the old code.
>> >>
>> >> I could also file a Thrift bug.  Or are you implying you'll do it?
>> >
>> > If it is a bug.  I never made time to do the research, but here is
>> > what seems to be happening...
>> >
>> > Optional members are not included in the constructor, required members
>> > are.  I'm not sure if they ever were, and the constructors were just
>> > manually added after generation or not.
>> >
>> > E.g.,
>> >
>> > struct ColumnParent1 {
>> >    3: required string column_family,
>> >    4: optional binary super_column,
>> > }
>> >
>> > generates:
>> >
>> >  public ColumnParent1(String column_family)
>> >  {
>> >    this();
>> >    this.column_family = column_family;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > whereas:
>> >
>> > struct ColumnParent3 {
>> >    3: required string column_family,
>> >    4: required binary super_column,
>> > }
>> >
>> > generates:
>> >
>> >  public ColumnParent3(String column_family, byte[] super_column)
>> >  {
>> >    this();
>> >    this.column_family = column_family;
>> >    this.super_column = super_column;
>> >  }
>> >
>> >
>> > Changing the optional fields to required solves the problem and
>> > creates the necessary constructors, or the required constructors can
>> > be added.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, I'm a thrift noob too.  Old-timers, what is the correct
>> behavior?
>> >
>> > Gary.
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message