On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:48:26 -0400 Tom Keiser <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think this also begs the question: is the above sufficient > motivation to revise the ext-union RPC-L grammar to include an > optional max-leg-length specification, e.g., the following: Yes, I think so. I feel like I may have mildly objected to this in the past, but I'm not really sure why. As you pointed out this, is directly analogous to the array length limitations XDR already has, and the situation is exactly the same except for memory allocation issues. I don't think such things are really required to make the spec work, but I'm sure they help compatibility nontrivially. However, one point of clarification: > + ext-union-opt-max-leg-length: > + "max-leg-length" "=" value I would have thought that this would be "max-unknown-leg-length" or something. Are you suggesting a max length for _all_ legs, or just the ones we skip over? I don't see a need to specify a max length for defined legs, since they should already have a max length implied from the formation of the elements in the leg. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
