In this situation then wen we have a AVDL protocol definition. The
documentation mentions Avro tools for generation.
But I need runtime protocol changes.
Can the generation of protocol classes be done automatically at runtime?
W dniu 30.09.2013 23:08, Doug Cutting pisze:
> For RPC, specific is usually most convenient. The generated interface
> and classes can be used to create requests and make calls, while a
> service can implement the interface. Generic might be useful for
> proxy-type RPC services, that can handle RPCs made in any protocol.
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:32 AM, michał <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We have got two ways of creating an RPC communication protocol from AVDL.
>> Specific provide a custom implementation (it require code generation based
>> on avdl) while generic provide 'generic' implementation. What this *generic*
>> actually means in terms of a protocol specification and code use?
>> 1. What is the difference between the two apart from code look?
>> 2. I can not understand what would be a good example code showing the
>> advantages of Specific vs Generic responder?
>> 3. When would be the good choice to use *generic* and when *specific (code
>> generation?)* responder?
>> thank you in advance for your time replying.