thrift-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wei Zheng <wzh...@hortonworks.com>
Subject Re: Variables name change for irrelevant methods
Date Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:14:53 GMT
Thanks Jens,

Your info really helps! Now I can be assured that the irrelevant changes are safe to keep
:)

Thanks,
Wei







On 4/19/16, 16:12, "Jens Geyer" <jensgeyer@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Wei Zheng,
>
>> Anyone knows the rationale behind this?
>
>There is a built-in mechanism for temporarily variables. It basically relies 
>on a special prefix plus an incremented counter. The numbers are incremented 
>to generate variable names that do not produce collisions.
>
>> I don't think this kind of change is harmful.
>
>Yep, correct. These are all only internal variable names, whose names are 
>only relevant in the given scope.
>
>> But it requires code change for irrelevant files, which is unexpected.
>
>You mean w/regard to your VCS? In theory, generated artifacts are not to be 
>added to the VCS because they can be generated from the IDL. But 
>nevertheless, in real world, one may indeed want to do exactly that, for a 
>number of reasons. But even then, at the end it is generated code, so nobody 
>should really care that much about it. Especially if IDL changes and 
>(generated) code changes are in the same commit.
>
>Have fun,
>JensG
>
>
>
>-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht----- 
>From: Wei Zheng
>Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 11:39 PM
>To: user@thrift.apache.org
>Subject: Variables name change for irrelevant methods
>
>Hi all,
>
>I made change to an existing .thrift file, by adding a new struct:
>
>struct NewRequest {
>    1: required list<i64> txn_ids,
>}
>
>After regenerating code, I do see the changes I want. But I also noticed 
>there are a bunch of files which are irrelevant to this change, but have 
>many variable names being changed, for example:
>
>Previously:
>                org.apache.thrift.protocol.TMap _map524 = 
>iprot.readMapBegin();
>                struct.metadata = new 
>HashMap<Long,MetadataPpdResult>(2*_map524.size);
>                long _key525;
>                MetadataPpdResult _val526;
>                for (int _i527 = 0; _i527 < _map524.size; ++_i527)
>
>Now:
>                org.apache.thrift.protocol.TMap _map532 = 
>iprot.readMapBegin();
>                struct.metadata = new 
>HashMap<Long,MetadataPpdResult>(2*_map532.size);
>                long _key533;
>                MetadataPpdResult _val534;
>                for (int _i535 = 0; _i535 < _map532.size; ++_i535)
>
>I don't think this kind of change is harmful. But it requires code change 
>for irrelevant files, which is unexpected. Anyone knows the rationale behind 
>this?
>
>Thanks,
>Wei 
>
>
Mime
View raw message