At Mon, 29 Mar 2021 00:02:58 -0300, "'alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org'" <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote in
> On 2021-Mar-29, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com wrote:
>
> > > (Hey, what the heck is that "Z" at the end of the message? I thought
> > > the error ended right at the \x00 ...)
> >
> > We'll investigate these issues.
>
> For what it's worth, I did fix this problem in patch 0005 that I
> attached. The problem was that one "continue" should have been "break",
> and also a "while ( .. )" needed to be made an infinite loop. It was
> easy to catch these problems once I added (in 0006) the check that the
> bytes consumed equal message length, as I had suggested a couple of
> weeks ago :-) I also changed the code for Notice, but I didn't actually
> verify that one.
>
> > > 2. The < and > characters are not good for visual inspection. I
> > > replaced them with F and B and I think it's much clearer. Compare:
> > > I think the second one is much easier on the eye.
> >
> > Yes, agreed. I too thought of something like "C->S" and "S->C"
> > because client and server should be more familiar for users than
> > frontend and backend.
>
> Hmm, yeah, that's a reasonable option too. What do others think?
It's better to be short as far as it is clear enough. Actually '<' to
'F' and '>' to 'B' is clear enough to me. So I don't need a longer
notation. O(ut) and (I)n also makes sense to me. Rather, "C->S", and
"S->C" are a little difficult to understand at a glance
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
