search

anuragraghavan / franca

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/franca
0 stars 0 forks source link

Add optional support for explicit struct/union element indices #81

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Some other IDLs (e.g. Thrift) support the possibility to add (optional) indices 
to struct (and union) elements.

Example:

struct MyStruct {
  0: UInt32 a
  1: String b
  5: UInt16 c
}

This indices can be used by a platform implementation to ensure backward 
compatibility when new elements are added (or even removed) from the interface 
definition. 

This is a backwards-compatible IDL change.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by klaus.birken@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2014 at 3:53

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Some remarks:
- there have to be some (validation) rules for these indices, e.g.: mixing of 
indexed elements and non-indexed elements, do indices have to be sorted, etc
- there are some intricacies of this feature when combined with struct 
inheritance (also the polymorphic flag has to be taken into account).

Original comment by klaus.birken@gmail.com on 9 Jan 2014 at 3:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by klaus.birken@gmail.com on 19 Feb 2014 at 10:37

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Postponed to next milestone.

Original comment by klaus.birken@gmail.com on 8 Dec 2014 at 1:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by klaus.birken@gmail.com on 25 Jan 2015 at 11:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
A. Warnke:
wouldn't the following syntax be 'nicer', in the way that you do not solve 
implementation-problems in the interface definition language?

struct MyStruct {
  UInt32 a
  String b
  UInt32 deprecated_1
  UInt32 deprecated_2
  UInt32 deprecated_3
  UInt16 c
}

you would not need to change anything...

Original comment by office.a...@googlemail.com on 27 Jan 2015 at 9:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Replanning and setting status to RFC because of some discussion during the 
GENIVI BoF Tools meeting.

Original comment by klaus.birken@gmail.com on 28 Jan 2015 at 9:45