Re: [DISCUSS] split separator work into two phases - to isolate non-backward-compatible behavior change

2018-08-10 Thread Mike Beckerle
il.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] split separator work into two phases - to isolate non-backward-compatible behavior change Agreed, 1024 is way to small for plenty of formats. In fact, what are your thoughts on removing the restriction completely? I guess the downside is that a too lax schem

Re: [DISCUSS] split separator work into two phases - to isolate non-backward-compatible behavior change

2018-08-09 Thread Steve Lawrence
> > > Comments? > > > > ------------ > *From:* Steve Lawrence > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 8, 2018 11:49:46 AM > *To:* dev@daffodil.apache.org; Mike Beckerle > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS]

Re: [DISCUSS] split separator work into two phases - to isolate non-backward-compatible behavior change

2018-08-09 Thread Mike Beckerle
haps a trailer, and those body arrays are BIG, that this default of 1024 just seems silly to me. Comments? From: Steve Lawrence Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 11:49:46 AM To: dev@daffodil.apache.org; Mike Beckerle Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] split separator work int

Re: [DISCUSS] split separator work into two phases - to isolate non-backward-compatible behavior change

2018-08-08 Thread Steve Lawrence
I'm in favor of this. Would it be possible to add a tunable to flip the behavior between current/broken and new/fixed? That would make for a very clean path towards deprecation. We can just warn users for a couple releases that the tunable will be flipped at some point and give time for users to t

[DISCUSS] split separator work into two phases - to isolate non-backward-compatible behavior change

2018-08-08 Thread Mike Beckerle
Due to this issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1975 This is a non-backward-compatible change. The impact of it could be significant on existing schemas. Depending on scale of the impact we may have to put in flags to turn on/off the changed behavior. Love to avoid that, but