interfaces, object paths and activation

[Havoc Pennington]

On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 13:15, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 	Okay, so here's a patch for this much at least ...
> 

Thanks, it looks like this resulted in a pretty nice code
cleanup/size-reduction as well. Can't argue with that.

> 	I've made the field name a BYTE so that we can jam the typecode in with
> the field name saving ourselves four bytes per field, but perhaps we
> should use the other two bytes for the field name too, just to give
> ourselves more room for future expansion ?

If we ever used up 255 fields, we could make field number 256 mean
"extended field" and then have an additional field code as part of the
field value, I would think. So probably it's fine to stick to one byte.
I can't really imagine getting to 255 anyway.

One question I had - why align the field name to 4 byte boundaries?

Havoc