[sldev] message_template.msg ordering and packing : attention LLfolks

[John Hurliman]

Tleiades wrote:
> I have a hard time accepting this as a bug, I do agree that it really 
> isn't elegant, and makes things more complicated than it really needs 
> to be, without any gains.

> Yes, I agree, it could have been implemented differently, and the 
> results would be easier to understand, but is it really a bug?


Since we are down to semantics now, lets replace the word "bug" with 
"bad" and move on. It would certainly make third party implementations 
of the networking library easier to write without the hashing and 
reordering mess, and should make clients more resilient to future 
changes in the protocol (where adding a single field won't reorder the 
entire template). If something like alphabetical ordering was used it 
would significantly change the protocol ordering one time, but this 
probably isn't much different than a normal protocol-breaking release. 
Any thoughts?

John Hurliman