yes. at this point, an rpc-l primitive and corresponding rxgen support seem like something we would need to enable manageable and consistent elaboration of different union types, if I at all understand the issues. I'm happy to make xcb conformant with this, for example. I am not interested in seeing this wheel invented several times.
Matt ----- "Andrew Deason" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
