6 ms·

As long as you know the use cases of your fields, renaming is just fine. My team regularly does it. We also maintain our own serializer and deserializer json, X

by kyrra 1mo ago

As long as you know the use cases of your fields, renaming is just fine. My team regularly does it. We also maintain our own serializer and deserializer json, XML, and fixed with formats. The json one we handle serialization using an annotation to say how it should be exported.

ventana 1mo ago
Of course, the whole concept of a breaking change does not really apply if all usage is within the controlled code. The problems start to appear when you have external users with old versions; then protobuf starts having a bunch of weird limitations. My favorite is that it's forbidden to move a field into or out of a `oneof`: it's a compatible change in a sense of wire format and JSON, but breaks the generated Golang code.
- eterm 1mo ago
  Breaking changes matter even with controlled code, because you can have requests that straddle upgrade boundaries, it's fiction to believe that all services are upgraded at the same moment, and pretending that is the case is the sort of thing that leads to quiet data corruption or mysterious bugs that can never seem to get reproduced. Even if you upgrade with coordinated downtime across your entire service stack ( a bit old-school, but still happens more than you might imagine. ), then you still have to occasionally deal with requests that get persisted somewhere, possibly for support purposes, and it's much handier if the wire format remains compatible, at least between immediate versions.
  - imoverclocked 1mo ago
    There is a lot of ambiguity in this thread. Yes, breaking changes need to be staged carefully/compatibly across versions. Simple renaming/reordering is not a breaking change between code versions. The wire format knows numeric ids, not names. It breaks code compilation until the renames are put into effect. There is a subtle breakage where someone renames a field (think: field -> old_field) and then later adds "field" to mean something else; software that isn't recompiled in this window might not recognize that "field" is potentially different. Uncompiled languages may suffer this even more subtly. -- All of this to say, breaking compilation is not the end of the world but there are more dragons as the scope grows. Stop-the-world is usually only needed when someone has made an unplanned/incompatible change with versions that are still running. If your infrastructure+development is done right (hah) this should never happen.

by kyrra 1mo ago

ventana 1mo ago

Of course, the whole concept of a breaking change does not really apply if all usage is within the controlled code. The problems start to appear when you have external users with old versions; then protobuf starts having a bunch of weird limitations. My favorite is that it's forbidden to move a field into or out of a `oneof`: it's a compatible change in a sense of wire format and JSON, but breaks the generated Golang code.

eterm 1mo ago
Breaking changes matter even with controlled code, because you can have requests that straddle upgrade boundaries, it's fiction to believe that all services are upgraded at the same moment, and pretending that is the case is the sort of thing that leads to quiet data corruption or mysterious bugs that can never seem to get reproduced. Even if you upgrade with coordinated downtime across your entire service stack ( a bit old-school, but still happens more than you might imagine. ), then you still have to occasionally deal with requests that get persisted somewhere, possibly for support purposes, and it's much handier if the wire format remains compatible, at least between immediate versions.
- imoverclocked 1mo ago
  There is a lot of ambiguity in this thread. Yes, breaking changes need to be staged carefully/compatibly across versions. Simple renaming/reordering is not a breaking change between code versions. The wire format knows numeric ids, not names. It breaks code compilation until the renames are put into effect. There is a subtle breakage where someone renames a field (think: field -> old_field) and then later adds "field" to mean something else; software that isn't recompiled in this window might not recognize that "field" is potentially different. Uncompiled languages may suffer this even more subtly. -- All of this to say, breaking compilation is not the end of the world but there are more dragons as the scope grows. Stop-the-world is usually only needed when someone has made an unplanned/incompatible change with versions that are still running. If your infrastructure+development is done right (hah) this should never happen.