Re: [Nbd] [RFC PATCH] doc: In STRUCTURED_REPLY, make error types easy to recognize
- To: Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>
- Cc: "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" <nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net>
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [RFC PATCH] doc: In STRUCTURED_REPLY, make error types easy to recognize
- From: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 13:32:58 +0200
- Message-id: <20160409113258.GS19023@...3...>
- In-reply-to: <E1AE283B-D54E-4955-AD0E-F2A8AA546728@...872...>
- References: <1460134137-3432-1-git-send-email-eblake@...696...> <B76616D0-B2F3-4313-9B94-B178C4A72828@...872...> <570815AA.6040201@...696...> <66657E74-4528-4558-81DA-299B2611110D@...872...> <20160409104438.GP19023@...3...> <E1AE283B-D54E-4955-AD0E-F2A8AA546728@...872...>
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 12:22:09PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
>
> On 9 Apr 2016, at 11:44, Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...> wrote:
>
> > It's always easier to add new data at the end rather than in the middle.
> > With the former, you can just use a struct to read data off the wire,
> > and it won't change because someone changed the message. With the
> > latter, that isn't the case.
>
> +1, though ...
>
> > (this is also pretty much how ASN.1 works, IIUC)
>
> .... IMHO ASN.1 is a design anti-pattern.
Don't disagree with that, but DER *is* fairly robust :-)
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
Reply to: