On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Gordon Sim <g...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Right. I'm saying that sucks, so don't do that. For instance, we >> could ask our users to use a 'Data' class to input arbitrary bytes, >> and otherwise treat ambiguous strings as textual. > > The point is that it is easy for people to miss that. Just as it is easy for > them to miss the fact that you should choose the explicit utf8 type for > textual data. > > An explicit type is always preferable. The question is how to handle an > ambiguous type. If encoded as a str16 then it may work in some case and fail > in others; i.e. a subtle bug that testing may not catch depending on > payloads actually tested. By contrast if it is encoded as a vbin the > behaviour - even though admittedly unexpected for many - will at least be > the same each time you try it independent of the actual contents of the > string.
Sorry, it took me too long to understand the scenario in question. You and Jimmy are of course right about this very real gotcha. Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
