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 19:11:45 GMT
Ok, will do - byte[] it is.

Perhaps we should change the term "longstr" in the spec to "binary" or
something similar. It would be less confusing.

Kim

On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 19:08 +0000, Robert Greig wrote:
> On 20/12/06, Kim van der Riet <kim.vdriet@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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).
> 
> String.getBytes() decodes using the platform default encoding, which
> will probably work for most platforms but would almost certainly break
> if there is a platform with UTF-8 as the default encoding (although I
> am not aware of any).
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Do we have any cases where we need to send a true "long string"? I
> think having it as a byte array makes sense for the current cases and
> I think it was intended to be a byte array, despite the spec's odd
> choice of name.
> 
> RG


Mime
View raw message