On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Eric Anderson <ej...@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Mark D. Roth <r...@google.com> wrote: > >> Right off the cuff, I can think of a few possible options here: >> >> 1. Always base64-encode the extracted values. >> 2. Do base64 encoding only when non-ASCII characters are actually present. >> 3. Simply strip out non-ASCII characters. >> > > There's also the option of encoding the special characters. Say, with > %-encoding. We're doing this for status messages. I think we are sad each > time we have to do this, but it frequently seems to be the least-bad > solution. > > Note this would get pretty strange (from a parsing perspective) when > values are binary, not text. So we may want a different solution for binary. > You're right, that is another viable option. And I do like the fact that it makes things easier to debug in the common case, where the string is mostly ASCII but may have a small number of non-ASCII characters. The down-side of this approach is that, as you pointed out, we would probably want a separate solution for binary data. That would mean two different code-paths and probably some way to indicate which one we want to use for each header extraction spec. Alfred, what are you thoughts on all of this? -- Mark D. Roth <r...@google.com> Software Engineer Google, Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to grpc-io+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to grpc-io@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/CAJgPXp7wVERTLXAjYwvJZbHP3QrAFkfvOFqzb%3DpTZdpmbyb0dA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
