From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZjpq-0007T4-Bn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:43:54 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NZjpj-0007Ss-Ra
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:43:52 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=32920 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NZjpj-0007Sp-NZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:43:47 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14697)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1NZjpj-0004ow-9i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:43:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:43:29 -0200
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] win32: use PRId64 instead of %lld
Message-ID: <20100126094329.70719b6f@doriath>
In-Reply-To: <20100125153838.GB11161@redhat.com>
References: <1264368221-3040-1-git-send-email-hpoussin@reactos.org>
	<20100125100905.GA9019@redhat.com>
	<20100125120348.461ce622@doriath>
	<m3k4v6s14m.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
	<20100125132719.23a483cf@doriath>
	<20100125153838.GB11161@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, Herve@gnu.org, Poussineau <hpoussin@reactos.org>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:38:38 +0200
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 01:27:19PM -0200, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:35:53 +0100
> > Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:09:06 +0200
> > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >>                                                                 Finally,
> > > >> don't we want unsigned values in protocol?
> > > >
> > > >  JSON doesn't support them.
> > > 
> > > Uh, where does the RFC say that?
> > 
> >  I see that my comment was misleading.
> > 
> >  In JSON we don't have unsigned types, we have only a type
> > called 'number' to represent them all.
> > 
> >  Unsigneds should be handled correctly, except for uint64_t which
> > is cast to int64_t.
> > 
> >  Michael, does this answer your question?
> > Is there any
> > issue with the handling of unsigneds I'm not aware about?
> 
> The issue I see isn't related to unsigned.  Apparently we currently
> accept values such as 'a' as valid strings. Since this is not valid json
> we probably should reject it just in case we will want to switch to
> another json library, otherwise clients might come to depend on
> non-standard behaviour.

 This extension is only used internally by QEMU and we find it
very convenient otherwise we would have to escape strings in
dicts and lists, which is error prone and time consuming.