--On Thursday, February 10, 2011 05:50:15 PM -0600 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 ?
Back at the beginning of the week, I was thinking in terms of a primitive
extensible address type. At this point, I think if we're going to define a
new primitive type, a generic extensible union is a better choice. I don't
much care what we call it, provided the actual type name isn't too
unwieldy, except that I think "TLV" is a bad choice because we already use
that term to describe similar constructs that are not exactly this type. I
explicitly have no opinion on whether or not to prefix the type name with
"afs" a la afsUUID.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
