From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:53:53 +0300 From: Alexander Turenko Message-ID: <20191218105352.7mk7f655ep7hkyp4@tkn_work_nb> References: <20191206113711.ctzr6x7sqbpr3xkd@tarantool.org> <20191206135009.GA6394@tarantool.org> <20191217221143.parwzoyb3e327sw5@tkn_work_nb> <20191218102051.qgfa6nskqgrsqh4j@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191218102051.qgfa6nskqgrsqh4j@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-discussions] [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3 0/5] Replace control pragmas by SET List-Id: Tarantool development process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kirill Yukhin Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, tarantool-discussions@dev.tarantool.org, Peter Gulutzan , georgy@tarantool.org > To sum up. We spent too much time here. I think we can improve approaches > in future. But I see no serious reasons for that: > 1. To make it easier to use we might whant to implement some stored > routines or something/ > 2. Performance of encode/decode is out of intereset here. > > I propose you to file a feature request as follow up of the patchset. I read this as 'any design / API is okay'. So there is no sense to discuss it further. For me access a field of a structure with msgpack encode and then decode is a kind of `toString(bool_value).length() != 5` check. It is a bit toxic, I know. Sorry for this. WBR, Alexander Turenko.