- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 15:46:38 -0800
- To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Sunday, 3 March 2013 23:47:27 UTC
The LSB-ordered scheme used by protobufs is really drop dead simple to implement. Extremely difficult to get wrong unless you forget to account for signs. That's really the reason I chose it for the prototype. On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "James Cloos" <cloos@jhcloos.com> > To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com> > Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Sent: 3/03/2013 11:03:18 a.m. > Subject: Re: HTTP/2 Header Encoding Status Update > >> "JMS" == James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> JMS> LSB.. I'm currently following the same scheme as protobufs but >> that's not >> JMS> set in stone. >> >> IP itself is Big Endian. No protocol over it should choose otherwise. >> > > what proportion of hardware processing HTTP is big-endian? > > > > >> There is too much room for confusion otherwise. >> > > It's not actually that hard to get right. > you use library functions to get the information from TCP and lower anyway. > > IME you're more likely to get errors when using big-endian data, when you > omit a htonl / ntohl. > > Adrien > > >> If protobufs does so, that is a bug. >> >> -JimC >> -- >> James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 3 March 2013 23:47:27 UTC