On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 14:56 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > For information that belongs together logically a struct is fine. Ok. > The main reason to use nested attributes is when you only have a > single attribute to store your data in (for example TCA_OPTIONS > for qdiscs). In that case a nested attribute should be used to > allow to extend it in the future. Below that nested attribute > you could put a struct of course. Right, but that's not applicable to this unless I'm misunderstanding you. > In this case I think using a string attribute instead of a fixed > sized structure also makes sense for a different reason. Its > unlikely that groups will really use the maximum name length > allowed, so it should save some bandwidth. I suppose if I put (ID,name) into the struct it needn't be fixed-size length, but I dislike that as well. Do I understand you correctly in that you prefer the way I did it now? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
