On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 18:19 +0000, Robert Greig wrote: > On 20/12/06, Kim van der Riet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is it correct to keep the mapping in the new generator of longstr to > > String, or should it be kept as byte[]? I had anticipated that longstr > > may find wider usage besides security tokens. > > We need to be able to transfer a byte[] for the security negotiation, > i.e it is not a String that is being sent.
If we keep String, then String.getBytes() produces byte[], and new String(byte[]) gets a String. Will this work for security tokens? I am uncertain of the integrity of this conversion (but a test will soon prove it). Keeping String will open up general long strings > 256 chars as type String, or *must* we keep this byte[]? Your call. I *thought* we had gone over these types early in the project... but I can't find it. I see the spec says: "Long strings, used to hold chunks of binary data". > > FWIW I think the term "longstr" used in the protocol spec is a poor one. > > RG Thanks, Kim
