On Dec 3, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Ben Hood wrote: > > Why do you need byte, char and short?
I wasn't thinking properly. I do need to serialize and deserialize Byte and not have it magically transform into Integer (e.g. in the case where it's stored as an Object). It's a rare case, but does need to be handled, since Hessian turns out to be very good as a java.io.Serialization replacement. However, there's no need to modify the protocol. The implementation can just serialize Byte into an object with an integer value, e.g. with type = java.lang.Byte. > The reason why I am asking is because they not very often used and I > feel that the power of Hessian is the trade off between simplicity and > expressiveness. Furthermore, they are very Java/C/C++ - ish and > stipulating them may make Hessian implementations in other languages > more difficult. My suggestion would be as follows: Right, which is why I was holding off from putting it into the spec, but just didn't go the final step and make Byte/Float into objects. > Furthermore, I think that dropping the xml encoding from the spec was > a good idea. Yep. It was really only added because Hessian was first created at the very top of the XML hype. > I think as well that this is made more interesting by the > observation that not all languages distinguish (statically or > dynamically) between Strings and raw binary data. Some languages use > String notation simply as syntactic sugar to allocate a byte array. True, but languages like PHP got into big trouble by not handling unicode properly :) > I was thinking about how one would go about implementing a TCK for > Hessian implementations. One idea did strike me - the guys at AMQP > define the spec in terms of a parseable XML document, allowing > implementors to generate a lot of boiler plate code in whatever target > language they are interested in. I don't know how practical this could > be for Hessian, but at least you could list byte arrays that map to > specific types and object graphs, which is already partly there > anyway. I'll need to think about this. Unfortunately, I'm not sure when we'll get the time to work on a TCK. It would be very handy, though. Hessian is simple enough that you can do comprehensive testing. -- Scott > > Anyway, sorry about the rant, > > Ben > > > > _______________________________________________ > hessian-interest mailing list > [email protected] > http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/hessian-interest _______________________________________________ hessian-interest mailing list [email protected] http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/hessian-interest
