[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Glen Zorn wrote:
> What is being "protected" seem not to be so much the _idea_ of data-driven
> dictionaries but the existing, simplistic _implementations_ thereof...
Let's look at the statistics. For the dictionaries I have:
byte 40 (unsigned 8-bit integer)
short 14 (unsigned 16-bit integer)
ascend filter 6 (Ascend)
ipv4/ipv6addr 5 (ipv4 or ipv6 address)
signed 1 (signed 32-bit int)
13 data types in wide use, of which 5 are vendor extensions.
The "complex" attributes have all been lumped together into the
"string" category. All together, they account for about 6% of attributes.
This means that about 95% of the attributes in wide use follow the
RADIUS data model, as described in the guidelines document.
That's good evidence that the data model is not only in wide use, but
that it is widely useful.
> If, after 9+ years of the existence of so-called "complex" attributes, your
> programmers haven't managed to create a simple data-driven machine to parse
> them, maybe you need new programmers...
The design guidelines is opposed to the *gratuitous* use of complex
types. Such use indicates that you've hired people who prefer complex
solutions to simple ones.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.