| |||||||||||||
They should be paying attention to the lumberjack projectThey should be paying attention to the lumberjack projectPosted Apr 15, 2012 3:02 UTC (Sun) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)In reply to: They should be paying attention to the lumberjack project by aliguori Parent article: Toward more reliable logging
According to the JSON specification, the following is a perfectly valid number: 18446744073709551615 (AKA 264-1) It may be that some (most?) JSON libraries can't handle such a large number correctly, but it's valid according to the JSON grammar.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||