calcite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Should Jackson-annotated POJOs stick around
Date Tue, 11 Aug 2015 21:44:00 GMT
Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Andrew Purtell wrote:
>>
>>> That might be because protobuf documentation, and I'd assume accumulated
>>> practice based upon it, warns against using generated pbuf objects
>>> directly
>>> as model classes. (See the "Protocol Buffers and O-O Design" callout on
>>> https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/javatutorial.)
>>>
>> Assuming that's the case, that makes sense. It was just not clear to me if
>> Julian and I were just talking past each other or if there was some fallacy
>> I was suggesting.
>
>
> This differentiation between wire protocol and API is something that I have
> seen repeatedly in ex-Googlers. I was a bit curious since it seemed nice to
> have one definition for both levels.
>
> My opinion has verged to be 100% with the Google philosophy of separation
> after watching how the MapR internals work.  This kind of separation has
> really paid off in many instances. Having too tight a lock between wire and
> API would have been nearly disastrous for either comprehensibility of the
> API or efficiency of the wire. I can't share specifics, but if second-hand
> opinions are useful, you now have mine.
>

Absolutely, opinions are very useful here, Ted. Much appreciated. I'm 
trying to feel my way through the cleanest approach without stepping on 
architected toes.

Mime
View raw message