deRPC eval's the entire payload in one shot, so the long values need to be
represented exactly in their runtime representation, namely
{l=<number>,m=<number>,h=<number>}. Standard RPC has the opportunity to
process each value before it is available to user code.
Dan
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Ray Ryan <rj...@google.com> wrote:
> Why not change deRPC?
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Daniel Rice (דניאל רייס) <r...@google.com
> > wrote:
>
>> We thought about this, but the conclusion was that it would be better
>> not to expose yet another internal format. We do use this format for the
>> deRPC implementation.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:08 PM, <cromwell...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If they're being eval'ed, why not transmit the long as a JSON triple,
>>> like [li,mid,hi], and make a long out of it, it should be faster than
>>> base64 parsing, at the cost of slight bloat in the serialized stream,
>>> but either way, it seems a win. If longs are rare occurrences, the bloat
>>> not be significant, and if the # of longs were large (say, a long[]
>>> array), then parsing performance might be a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2010/06/16 20:53:36, jat wrote:
>>>
>>>> LGTM
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/626801/diff/1/2
>>>> File dev/core/super/com/google/gwt/lang/LongLib.java (right):
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/626801/diff/1/2#newcode58
>>>> dev/core/super/com/google/gwt/lang/LongLib.java:58: sb.append('\'');
>>>> On 2010/06/16 20:13:28, Dan Rice wrote:
>>>> > Fields in the RPC stream are JS literals that get eval'ed by
>>>> > ClientSerializationStreamReader.eval. The quotes make it a string
>>>>
>>> literal. I
>>>
>>>> > can move the quoting login into the RPC code, the cost being
>>>>
>>> spinning up an
>>>
>>>> > additional StringBuilder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, from FTF discussion we figured out they aren't needed on C->S
>>>>
>>> messages
>>>
>>>> because the server is just doing a split, but S->C is processed by an
>>>>
>>> eval.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/626801/show
>>>
>>
>> --
>> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>>
>
>
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
