On 06/04/2010 06:29 PM, Matt Massie wrote:
I would like to see us be a little more of a think-do-acrocy when it comes to important, high-level components of Avro (e.g. light-weight RPC). It would be nice to have some simple consensus before code starts getting slung around;
I'd rather we have proofs of concept before we standardize. I often find design issues while implementing. I like to see two working implementations before we promote something as an interoperability standard. Little else of substance has gone into the spec until it's been implemented twice.
otherwise, we'll see things in our spec like "The double is converted into a 64-bit integer using a method equivalent to Java's doubleToLongBits and then encoded in little-endian format." Not to say we would ever do such a thing. :)
I don't see a fundamental problem with that. It's a link to clear, detailed documentation that describes a standard for serializing infinities and NaNs, using zeroed mantissas. If you'd rather make the spec more standalone, then feel free to update that passage with these details. But there's nothing Java-specific in it. This is similar to the link to Protocol Buffers to define zig-zag encoding. It's perhaps lazy writing, but I don't think it's indicative of a technically flawed specification. Do you?
Doug
