On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 14:47 -0500, Ted Ross wrote: > Andrew, > > I'm beginning to use field tables for my management work and I've found > that the FieldTable interface (C++ broker) only has direct support for a > couple of types (Integer, String, Timestamp, Table). Do you have any > plans to expand this set? The above types are very generic whereas the > types in the AMQP spec are very specific in terms of size and > signedness. What's the plan for supporting the larger set of available > types in field tables? I assume there's a > consistent-naming-in-client-APIs issue here.
As it currently stands most of the 0-10 language bindings are similar. Do you have a need for different types specifically? If so which ones? Do you want to specify the signedness or length of your int? Or some other specific type. In general I think that the feeling is that there are too many very similar types (especially string ones) and the standard doesn't make it clear if some types are semantically the same as others. For example it would make sense to accept any string type irrespective of whether it was short or long (maybe you'd worry about iso8859-15 vs UTF though). Is this what you mean? Or are you interested in the remaining structured types? (Array and Sequence). Andrew
