Does this make sense?
Not really. The only differences between the encoded version and the unencoded version are:
'=' & "\n" versus ':' & "\n".
With the encoded version being far more restrictive, without really making anything more secure. It could also come back to bite you if you suddenly have the need to deal with data elements that contain punctuation.
Eg c:\... or firstname.lastname@someplace.com and many others.
Is there a better way to do this?
This has many advantages. Being able to read a set number of bytes to get the count that tells you how many bytes to wait for on the next read can be a real boon to timelyness.
Look at the n/a* pack template for one way to do that.
In reply to Re: Good IPC Message Protocols?
by BrowserUk
in thread Good IPC Message Protocols?
by pileofrogs
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |