On 05/17/2010 03:12 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Instead of encoding just as a string, it would be a good idea to encode
it as something like:
{'__class__': 'base64', 'data': ...}
Is there a benefit
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Instead of encoding just as a string, it would be a good idea to encode
>> it as something like:
>>
>> {'__class__': 'base64', 'data': ...}
>
> Is there a benefit to the class indirection, over simply a keyword?:
>
>
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Instead of encoding just as a string, it would be a good idea to encode
> it as something like:
>
> {'__class__': 'base64', 'data': ...}
Is there a benefit to the class indirection, over simply a keyword?:
{'__base64__': ...}
__class__ seems to suggest much more than i
On 05/14/2010 08:20 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
diff --git a/qjson.c b/qjson.c
index 483c667..4d1c21a 100644
--- a/qjson.c
+++ b/qjson.c
@@ -19,7 +19,9 @@
#include "qlist.h"
#include "qbool.h"
#include "qfloat.h"
+#include "qbuffer.h"
#include "qdict.h"
+#include "base64.h"
typedef struct JS
This introduces a buffer object for use with QMP. As a buffer is not
natively encodable in JSON, we encode it as a base64 string. To decode
this kind of strings back to a QBuffer, the receiving side has to be
aware of their semantic, which is normally no problem within QMP.
The first use case of t
