On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7 Mar 2011, at 20:46, Tom Keiser wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've published a new I-D, based upon the on-list consensus from the other
>> week, defining a new discriminated union primitive type. Feedback and
>> comments are hereby invited...
>
> I'm puzzled as to why length isn't just the length of the arm. If you modify
> the encoding so that length is just the length of the encoded arm, then you
> can actually decode these "new" unions using an existing rpcgen, by encoding
> them as
>
Hi Simon,
It was an arbitrary decision. Actually, now that I think about it,
this brings up an interesting question: will we ever want to use XDR
to encode large streams of data (e.g., a next-generation dump format)?
If so, we would likely want the length field to be a hyper. On the
other hand, that would result in a significant increase in common-case
overhead. Should we defer that until we need it, perhaps with an
afs-union64?
> struct {
> int type;
> opaque arm;
> }
>
> ... which I suspect might come in useful somewhere down the line.
>
Indeed it would. I'll change the language for -01.
Cheers,
-Tom
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
