On Thursday 12 September 2002 08:40, you wrote: > > Anyhow, the other point I wished to make, is that from looking at your > > information, it seems like it would be far more convinent still to just > > call the onionnetworks library direclty - okay, yeah, I see the > > usefulness of this for providing access to people who don't have/don't > > want to have bindings to this, but it just seems like an unnessesary > > layer of abstraction to me. But perhaps I am on crack. > > Hmmm, maybe. It's not well documented afaics? Anyway, higher level > commands (with reasonable status reporting, and some sort of keepalives > or a way to reconnect to a running command, and it only terminate when > explicitly told to), would make clients easier to write, but this looks > useful. Status messages might be a useful addition. "keepalive", "reconnect" == stateful. You don't want to do that. One of the reasons that FCP is easy is that it is stateless.
--gj _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
