Rakesh, Just our 2cents, but I think artificially restricting keys to ASCII if there is no technical reason to do so (I.e. as long as it works with both the text and binary protocols) is a bit short sighted. It helps having the whole UTF8 range available to avoid having to pre-hash your keys if they contain non-ascii characters (e.g. delimiters)?
-Kieran From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rakesh Rajan Sent: 20 December 2007 16:43 To: Dustin Sallings Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: What is a valid key? Dustin, just to clarify the bug report that I emailed you, the problem was with the "value" and not the "key". Since you bought up the key issue with UTF8, I think that it is acceptable to force users to use ASCII as key, but allow values to be UTF8. -Rakesh On Dec 20, 2007 9:15 AM, Steven Grimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:43 PM, Dustin Sallings wrote: >> For the binary protocol I think none of this should matter at all. >> A key has a key length, so the question of valid characters should >> not be relevant. > > That's true, but it'd be really nice to not have different rules > based on protocol. In particular, I think it's unacceptable to be able to set a key/value pair with the binary protocol that you can't retrieve with the text protocol. -Steve
