Author: Jonas Schnelli 2019-03-24 19:35:45
Published on: 2019-03-24T19:35:45+00:00
In this email exchange, Dave has raised a question regarding the optional nature of short command IDs in the v2 message format. He suggests that it would be better to have a fixed-length field for all message types rather than dealing with variable size and mapping negotiation. However, Jonas argues that adding short IDs for some message types can help avoid collisions in the future, especially for messages with high frequency. He also mentions that there are only 26 different message types at present and short IDs may not be necessary for all of them. Additionally, he suggests that short IDs can be altered with the message protocol version and new negation should be straightforward. Finally, he states that while he has no objection to adding short IDs for other commands, there are little benefits for some commands and we only have 244 short IDs available.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T17:48:29.442155+00:00