qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kim van der Riet <kim.vdr...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: XML longstr mapping
Date Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:59:50 GMT
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 18:19 +0000, Robert Greig wrote:
> On 20/12/06, Kim van der Riet <kim.vdriet@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Is it correct to keep the mapping in the new generator of longstr to
> > String, or should it be kept as byte[]? I had anticipated that longstr
> > may find wider usage besides security tokens.
> We need to be able to transfer a byte[] for the security negotiation,
> i.e it is not a String that is being sent.

If we keep String, then
String.getBytes() produces byte[], and
new String(byte[]) gets a String.

Will this work for security tokens? I am uncertain of the integrity of
this conversion (but a test will soon prove it).

Keeping String will open up general long strings > 256 chars as type
String, or *must* we keep this byte[]? Your call. I *thought* we had
gone over these types early in the project... but I can't find it.

I see the spec says: "Long strings, used to hold chunks of binary data".

> FWIW I think the term "longstr" used in the protocol spec is a poor one.
> RG


View raw message