why does the cmdserver use a 4-byte length field?

[Laurens Holst]

Op 04-07-11 15:34, Idan Kamara schreef:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Laurens Holst<laurens.nospam at grauw.nl>  wrote:
>> Op 01-07-11 15:32, Idan Kamara schreef:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Jesper Schmidt<schmiidt at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> I mean a 2-byte length field seems to be enough for the input channels.
>> I think in today’s day and age you shouldn’t worry about two bytes. Any performance difference it would make will be basically immeasurable.
>>
>> What you *should* worry about is that the protocol does not impose arbitrary limitations that may become a serious limitation in the future. Y’know, like FAT32’s 4GB file size limit (Mercurial’s not that different from a file system... :)).
> Mercurial already has internal limitations on the file sizes, see:
> http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/HandlingLargeFiles

Yes but if the large files problem is fixed in the future, should the 
command server ‘by design’ impose an additional obstacle to handling 
large files?

~Laurens