You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@thrift.apache.org by james anderson <ja...@setf.de> on 2010/07/03 20:11:41 UTC
where is an accurate bnf?
good evening;
the git-hub mirrored bnf appears inaccurate at least in the message-
begin production.
is there a more up-to-date version?
Re: where is an accurate bnf?
Posted by james anderson <ja...@setf.de>.
On 2010-07-05, at 08:05 , Bryan Whitehead wrote:
> What do you mean by current release?
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/thrift/download/ shows 0.2.0 as the
> latest stable.
>
> Do you mean something like "current trunk version"?
yes. in any case, all thrift.bnf files are the same across the versions.
>
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Michael Walsh <mi...@michael.ie>
> wrote:
>> Hi James,
>> The official code repo is on apache svn. The current release is
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/thrift/branches/0.3.0
>>
>> I don't know why we have any git resources at all as they just
>> seem to keep
>> confusing people.
>>
>> M
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 3 Jul 2010, at 19:11, james anderson <ja...@setf.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> good evening;
>>>
>>> the git-hub mirrored bnf appears inaccurate at least in the
>>> message-begin
>>> production.
>>> is there a more up-to-date version?
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: where is an accurate bnf?
Posted by Bryan Whitehead <dr...@megahappy.net>.
What do you mean by current release?
http://incubator.apache.org/thrift/download/ shows 0.2.0 as the latest stable.
Do you mean something like "current trunk version"?
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Michael Walsh <mi...@michael.ie> wrote:
> Hi James,
> The official code repo is on apache svn. The current release is
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/thrift/branches/0.3.0
>
> I don't know why we have any git resources at all as they just seem to keep
> confusing people.
>
> M
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 19:11, james anderson <ja...@setf.de> wrote:
>
>> good evening;
>>
>> the git-hub mirrored bnf appears inaccurate at least in the message-begin
>> production.
>> is there a more up-to-date version?
>>
>>
>
Re: where is an accurate bnf?
Posted by james anderson <ja...@setf.de>.
On 2010-07-03, at 22:55 , Michael Walsh wrote:
> Hi James,
> The official code repo is on apache svn. The current release is
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/thrift/branches/0.3.0
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/thrift/branches/0.3.x/doc/
thrift.bnf has the same internal modification date as the git clone.
>
> I don't know why we have any git resources at all as they just seem
> to keep confusing people.
the points of confusion are
1. binary encodings appear to stretch the proviso, that "the order of
elements could be in some cases rearranged" to eliminate the name
constituent from the field-begin entirely. perhaps because, without
reordering the clauses, it would be impossible to recognize a binary
T_STOP=0?
2. the message-type, as transposed to be the first constituent of a
message-begin appears to actually itself have two constituents: the
protocol identifier and the protocol version number. is the protocol
identifier domain documented?
3. the field-type names appear, but between the slee, etal paper, the
wiki, and the code (at least from reading the cpp, java, and ruby
implementation) the domains for t_string and t_binary are never
conclusively specified. t_string implies at base unsigned 8-bit,
while descriptions of t_binary imply signed.
4. is there a specification for standard encodings for the various
symbolic indicators for binary protocols?
>
> M
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 19:11, james anderson <ja...@setf.de>
> wrote:
>
>> good evening;
>>
>> the git-hub mirrored bnf appears inaccurate at least in the
>> message-begin production.
>> is there a more up-to-date version?
>>
>>
Re: where is an accurate bnf?
Posted by Michael Walsh <mi...@michael.ie>.
Hi James,
The official code repo is on apache svn. The current release is https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/thrift/branches/0.3.0
I don't know why we have any git resources at all as they just seem to
keep confusing people.
M
Sent from my iPhone
On 3 Jul 2010, at 19:11, james anderson <ja...@setf.de> wrote:
> good evening;
>
> the git-hub mirrored bnf appears inaccurate at least in the message-
> begin production.
> is there a more up-to-date version?
>
>