interfaces, object paths and activation

Mark McLoughlin
Sun, 21 Sep 2003 19:22:13 +0100


On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 19:10, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 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.

	... and if we had ever gotten up to 255 with the 4-char identifiers we
would have been in some trouble anyway :)

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

	Yeah, good question. The old code did it this way too so I just made it
explicit. But sure, there isn't a good reason from a protocol point of
view to do it this way. I think, the only problem this will present is
making the field deletion logic cope with this ... but it might not be
such a bad idea to re-think that code anyway.

	Will I go ahead and do that, then ?