On 10/24/11 3:48 PM, dormando wrote: >> There's nothing like that currently. Last discussion I remember is that >> we decided against allowing binary keys at the client because we don't >> know what other clients may expect when trying to get that item. >> >> We can certainly reconsider that, but it's not been needed thus far. > What the hell? I thought 50% of the whole point of the binary protocol was > to make binary keys possible. It's a flag in most other clients. You know, > like, that whole utf8 argument? Are you absolutely sure about this?
Calm down. It clearly wasn't 50% of the use cases given that it's just now come up. :) I'm not absolutely sure, but I do remember something about removing it and discussing it with Dustin at some point. I doubt if either of us remember the conversation exactly. Maybe Dustin will pop up and call me a liar. I doubt that though. I'd surely take a patch/issue to add a configuration flag to ignore this check, but there's not one currently. In my personal opinion, I think we should allow binary keys. It is useful. > >> I might ask, are you doing sha1/md5 because you really need the sum of >> something, or are you doing it to simplify what you use for your key? > He's trying to reduce the bytes of the item to the absolute minimum. Sorry, I'd not read the whole thread, but I have now. Given the 'collisions are okay', it could be just as simple to strip out any illegal characters. I'd probably rather add a switch to flip though. Matt
