thrift-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bryan Duxbury <>
Subject Re: optional fields in function declaration
Date Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:46:59 GMT
I would say that there's no question it would be useful. However, I'm  
not sure how that would translate to all client languages.

A completely safe and reliable way to simulate this would be to make  
a new struct for your method that has optional fields and just use  
that as the only parameter to the method. Does that make sense?


On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:46 PM, Matthieu Imbert wrote:

> structs can have optional fields, but it's not currently possible  
> to put
> an optional parameter in a thrift function prototype.
> if i understand correctly, internally function parameters passing is
> made through structs, so wouldn't it be easy and usefull to add  
> support
> to optional function parameters?
> -- 
> Matthieu

View raw message