On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:17:14PM -0500, Brandon wrote:
>
> > My point being that... now we have FNPClient, FCPClient, and even
> > InternalClient which I'm ready to commit to the experimental branch.
> > Combine that with the evolution of the protocol, and I am finding that
> > the old semantics just don't _quite_ make sense anymore.
>
> I'm happy with whatever changes you want to make to Client as long as you
> promise to always keep SimplifiedClient up to date and working in both
> streaming and non-streaming modes (which relates very much to the event
> model). So as long as you don't commit until you've tested
> SimplifiedClient, I say go for it. After thoughtfully announcing such
> changes to the list, of course. :-)
Well, Brandon, I will do my best :)
But you are the author of SimplifiedClient after all.. can you comment
on whether SimplifiedClient would be affected by my proposed changes to
the client events? Of course I realize it would need to be tweaked if
we dispensed with the TRANSFERRING Request state.
--
# tavin cole
#
# "The process of scientific discovery is, in effect,
# a continual flight from wonder."
# - Albert Einstein
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
