Beats me. I thought it already did do exactly that. Can someone
explain to me why there's any reason for memcached to care if it gets
a UTF-8 key so long as the key fits within the maximum number of
bytes? That seems like an issue for client libraries to deal with
(e.g., Java, which does everything in Unicode, will have to validate
the length of the key after rendering it to bytes.)
To my knowledge nothing in the server even notices, much less cares,
whether the high bits are set in any of the bytes of the key, which is
really the only difference between a UTF-8 string an and ASCII string
if you view it as a series of bytes.
-Steve
On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:57 AM, a. wrote:
I haven't seen the server from inside (I only wrote a client), so
maybe it's anoob question, but
why do we have to treat the key as a "string"? Cannot be just
treated as an array of bytes (whihc cannot contain some values
listed earlier)? So we do not have to care about codepages and
encodings and such?
a.
On Dec 20, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Kieran Benton wrote:
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
