Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?

I believe python supports very large integers. Try this in your python
interpreter:

>>> bigint = 2**(2**16)
>>> print bigint

I first became aware of missing integer types in LLSD when I was coding the
event queue messages to support group chat in OpenSimulator. It seems that
"region handles" are 64 bit integers in the LL protocols but are encoded as
a base64 encoded binary blob in LLSD as LLSD has no support for integers
larger than 32 bits. I suspect that changing LLSD to have larger integer
types might create some compatibility issues with existing implementations
that expect to use the binary blob.

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> What were the reasons to allow onl a single integer type? There must have
>> been a good arguments for that?
>>
>
> IIRC, some of the languages we wished to support (Python comes to mind) did
> not have support for integers larger than 32-bits. ECMAScript doesn't have
> integer number types at all only IEEE 754 64-bit floats; if you constrain
> the input and output to 32-bit integers it can represent those accurately,
> but not 64-bit integers.
>
> If you look at the history of LLSD, it started with 3 serialization formats
> that explicitly specified the type of values - XML, binary, and "notation" -
> a compact text serialization intermediate in size between binary and XML.
> The IETF drafts dropped notation and added JSON. The JSON serialization was
> "lossy" as LLSD describes types and values that don't exist in JSON
> (Integer, Date, UUID, NaN, Infinity, etc). By design, though, the type
> conversions described in the LLSD Draft accommodate e.g. by serializing a
> Date as an ISO 8601 string, which when interpreted as a date by the receiver
> results in the original Date by the string->date conversion rules. (I don't
> know if we had resolved every issue with JSON serialization; certainly,
> discussion about edge cases on this list never made it into a draft).
>
> As far as adding new types: I believe there was the belief that this could
> be accommodated by defining an "LLSD2" at some point in the future with a
> distinct MIME type for serializations (e.g. application/llsd2+xml); unlike
> the Web, content negotiation over HTTP was assumed to be functional within
> VWRAP interoperation. Therefore, there was no push to ensure LLSD "v1" was
> internally extensible or comprehensive for all imaginable scalar/structured
> types.
>
> Anyway... if contributors have implementation of abstract data type systems
> that share characteristics with LLSD and are thinking about adding
> additional scalar/structured types, they should look at the issues with both
> implementation languages and serialization formats.
>
> -- Josh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>