On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:42:52 +0000 Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So I would agree with a primitive type. Do we want to keep new > > primitive types prefixed with "afs" like afsUUID was? Call it... > > afsTLV ? > > I'd like to see a primitive type too. I'm not sure where you're > getting TLV from (yet another TLA?) - would something like afsAddress > not be cleaner? I thought the primitive type was just for a "flexible union", and then you build an "address" type on top of it; I'd like to use the same type for other things. TLV = Tag-Length-Value, which I suppose is more of an encoding than a conceptual description. But I'm not sure what else to call it; a "flexible union"/afsFlexUnion, a "union with length"/afsLUnion, a "backwards-compatible union"/bunion ? -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
