thrift-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nitin Bahadur <>
Subject Re: union support
Date Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:51:29 GMT
Hi David,

  Like you I stumbled upon it by looking at some blog post.

I also read a thread of issues of "union" construct between a C++ server and a Java client
(don't know if
it's been addressed).

I just started using the union in a C++ <---> C++ app....hopefully I won't run into
an issue.


On Sep 20, 2013, at 7:43 AM, David Rennalls wrote:

> Hi,
>   I only recently discovered Thrift's support for unions. It's not
> mentioned in the IDL docs (, the
> tutorial .thrift file
> (;a=blob_plain;f=tutorial/tutorial.thrift)
> nor the "missing guide"
> ( I only stumbled
> onto it from this blog post
> Looks like Java support was added in 0.2 (with
> and Ruby support was
> added in 0.3 (with
> How come it's not documented anywhere ? It seems like a pretty major
> thing to be omitted.
> Someone had the same question on the mailing list a while back
> where they
> referenced these blog posts (had to use web archive versions)..
> ...the rapleaf blog author was originally using the "workaround" of
> having a struct with all optional fields and then ended up raising a
> JIRA to get union support added etc... We're using that "workaround"
> where I work right now, but looks like it would be good to transition
> to unions as that was the desired behavior in the first place.
> According to
> (April 2011)...
> "...There is full-fledged support for Unions in the IDL and the Java
> and Ruby libraries. Other languages will just generate a struct with
> the same set of fields, so they are backwards compatible...."
> I also found this for C# support
>, but is that in 0.9
> or just trunk ? I saw some JIRAs mentioning C++ and unions as well. Is
> the 'Unions' column on
> up-to-date ? We have a Java server with clients in Java, Perl and
> Python and we're using 0.9.0, so I guess transitioning to using unions
> would only benefit Java code (and IDL readability) in our case. While
> typing this I noticed there's already a JIRA for updating the docs
>, so I won't raise
> another one. However, until more detailed docs can be added (I know it
> takes time) could someone at least add it to the IDL page so new users
> know about it. If users are at least made aware of it they can do more
> digging on it's usage, supported languages etc..
> Thanks,
>   David


View raw message