calcite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
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<>  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
>> 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.

View raw message