On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:34:28AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: > "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 09:08:36PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> Ok, if you want to re-post the HACKING file also mentioning that > >> 'bool' shouldn't be used in our public APIs & wire protocol, > > > > What's wrong with using it in the wire protocol? XDR provides bool_t > > (as int) and converts 'bool' in the interface definition to bool_t. > > It's good to know that from portability/correctness standpoints that > would work. However, using a 32-bit "int" to transmit a single bit > of info is wasteful. How about this clarification to HACKING? There's no need. The types on the wire are a direct serialization of the types in our public API methods & structs. Since we forbid the use of bool in the public API, we'll never have any need for it on the RPC wire API. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list