interfaces, object paths and activation

Havoc Pennington
21 Sep 2003 14:36:05 -0400

On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 14:22, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > 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 ?

The general rule has been to align everything naturally, so e.g. strings
and bytes are aligned 1, 32-bit ints aligned 4, doubles aligned 8, etc.
It makes sense to me to keep it that way, so a 1-byte field name would
be aligned 1. If you want to code it up I'd be in favor, could save us
some bytes and keep things consistent.

If you want to go ahead and commit either with that change or without
but with a doc/TODO entry for that change, that would be fine. Just be
sure "make check" passes (and if you think any new corner cases have
been introduced, add new test messages for them).
Also remove the doc/TODO entry for this patch (unless I haven't
committed it yet, which is possible; I have a big patch outstanding).