Re: POM Xtables???

[Grant Taylor <gtaylor@riverviewtech.net>]

On 07/01/08 09:10, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> In any case, its unreasonable to expect us to never *extend* (not 
> change) the output to accomodate buggy parsers. This is by the way 
> the same way that is often used to extend binary structures, even 
> though someone stupid might use exact size checks.

*nod*

Agreed.

However as I sit here and think about it, it may be worth adding a new 
field *as early as possible* (read closes to the start of line) in the 
field list that indicates a version, which can be used to determine the 
fields and their position there in.  This would make it very easy for 
people to write strict parsers down the road.  A simple three character 
hex field (4 bytes including the leading space) would allow for 4k of 
strict layouts.  (Even more 0-9 and a-z or additionally A-Z.) Just a 
thought.



Grant. . . .