thrift-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Dunning" <>
Subject Re: Idea: Validations
Date Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:07:02 GMT
Sounds interesting.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Bryan Duxbury <> wrote:

> I was thinking today about how it would be useful to have some the option
> to do some kinds of validations on field values in Thrift objects. For
> instance, say you have a struct with a field "required string blah". You've
> managed to specify that it must be part of the struct, but nothing else.
> What if you also want to demand that it's a non-empty string? Or if it needs
> to be of a certain length? These are things that would make the generated
> code a lot more convenient to use at times.
> There are potentially a lot of these validations you could create, but most
> of them would be pretty trivial to implement in multiple languages. String,
> byte[], and collection length would be one simple one. Greater/less than for
> numeric fields would be another. One potentially tricky but awesome one
> would be "must match regex" validation on string fields.
> Clearly these validations might have a performance implication, so you
> probably wouldn't expect the to be run by default on all structs, though
> it'd be sensible to be able to enable and disable them globally so you can
> switch from development to production mode easily. You could always have
> access to the functionality via a public validate() method that would tell
> you true or false if the struct contained the proper fields.
> Do others think this would be interesting? It'd potentially introduce a lot
> of work in making sure each different validation was implemented across
> languages, but that would be mitigated by not having to have your
> application developers write the validation code in all the languages you
> use.
> -Bryan


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message