You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@thrift.apache.org by "Bryan Duxbury (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2010/09/08 16:56:34 UTC

[jira] Assigned: (THRIFT-894) Make default accessors for binary fields return byte[]; provide new accessors to get ByteBuffer version

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-894?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Bryan Duxbury reassigned THRIFT-894:
------------------------------------

    Assignee: Bryan Duxbury

> Make default accessors for binary fields return byte[]; provide new accessors to get ByteBuffer version
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: THRIFT-894
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-894
>             Project: Thrift
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Bryan Duxbury
>            Assignee: Bryan Duxbury
>             Fix For: 0.5
>
>
> Folks have pointed out that it's not always best for users to interact with the ByteBuffers that are now backing binary fields in our structs. In truth, it seems like ByteBuffers are probably an expert means of access, with associated benefits and complexities.
> I think we should generate two different sets of accessors for binary fields: a default set, named like usual, that return and take byte[], and a second set, named something like "get_buffer_for_<field>" that returns the underlying ByteBuffer. The byte[] accessors can wrap around the ByteBuffer ones as necessary.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.