4 ms·
You're talking about a different kind of "type safety". I mean that when I write code to consume a message, I would like to detect (at compile time) if I typo
by kentonv 10y ago
You're talking about a different kind of "type safety".
I mean that when I write code to consume a message, I would like to detect (at compile time) if I typo a field name, and I also don't want to worry about what happens if a (possibly-malicious) sender sending me a different type than I expected.
- EdSharkey 10y agoI like to use the term "binding" to differentiate between the compile-time type checks and static typing of messages in a programming language vs. the runtime type equivalence checks performed between sender and receiver of a message.
- bborud 10y agoPlease don't use the term "binding". It has many uses and it mostly tends to confuse people.
- EdSharkey 10y agoWhat kinds of uses of the term "binding" causes confusion in the context of message data types? I think binding is precisely what is going on when a compiler generates code for marshaling and unmarshaling messages based on a schema.
- bborud 10y agoBinding, as a term, is used for anything from assigning values to variables to what is essentially dependency injection of implementations of more or less abstract interfaces. I'm merely pointing out that the term is vague and can cause confusion. That you make a strong association with one use of the term doesn't really govern what others associate with it.