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

2018-08-10 Thread Mike Beckerle
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 schema might ca

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

2018-08-09 Thread Steve Lawrence
t; > > -------- > *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 into two phase

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

2018-08-09 Thread Mike Beckerle
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 into two phases - to isolate

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