On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:53:28PM +0100, Gordon Sim wrote: > On 09/25/2013 12:23 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:34:17AM +0200, Jimmy Jones wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:59:17PM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > >>>I modified the spout.pl example to do this for both the name and value > >>>on properties pass in at the command line and they were seen by the Java > >>>drain tool (yay!). > >>> > >>>So, narrowing down the goal slightly, WRT QPID-5067, do we want to 1) > >>>require the users to explicitly called utf8::upgrade() on the property > >>>name and value and assume that, whatever they pass in is correct, or do we > >>>2) assume it for them and upgrade the string in our porcelain layer? > >>> > >>>In this case, since message properties are always strings, the latter > >>>seems to me to be the right path. > >> > >>Can't message properties also be integers? Does the spec disallow binary? > >>Having said that, 2 seems sensible to me. > > > >I don't think it disallows them, and sorry I mean to say property names. > > The name will always be encoded as UTF8 at present, whether you call > utf8::upgrade() on it or not.
Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
pgpxuL3NySD2R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
