On 9 Apr 2016, at 11:44, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It's always easier to add new data at the end rather than in the middle.
> With the former, you can just use a struct to read data off the wire,
> and it won't change because someone changed the message. With the
> latter, that
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:17:50AM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> >
> > So, let's use two examples, of two different NBD_REPLY_TYPE_ERROR_OFFSET
> > messages (one with string, the other without). As I originally wrote the
> > RFC, they would be sent over the wire as:
> >
> > With my original RFC,
On 04/08/2016 11:17 AM, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
> On 8 Apr 2016, at 17:48, Eric Blake wrote:
>> We may add future structured error replies; making it easy
>> for older clients to properly treat such new reply types as
>> an error gives us a bit more flexibility on introducing new
On 8 Apr 2016, at 17:48, Eric Blake wrote:
> We may add future structured error replies; making it easy
> for older clients to properly treat such new reply types as
> an error gives us a bit more flexibility on introducing new
> errors to existing commands. Of course, good
We may add future structured error replies; making it easy
for older clients to properly treat such new reply types as
an error gives us a bit more flexibility on introducing new
errors to existing commands. Of course, good design practice
says we should try hard to prevent the server from