On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 08:59:11PM +0100, Adam Langley wrote:
> I really don't think that the FCP parsing times are too great -
> certainly not compared to the network lag times. If people want
> stunning performance they can use FCP or FNP. The cost of maintaining
> all the different interfaces (in terms of time, bugs and
> incompatibilites) is a lot. Better if FNP#2, FNP#3 (XML-RPC for wrose
> maybe) and FProxy are in 1 proxy. Less node code - more shared code =
> less bugs etc etc.
Well, it is up to you, but I am not sure that your argument adds up. If
you exposed a plugin API, it could be directly analogous to FCP layer 1.
The total code (and therefore potential for bugs) for XML-RPC plugin +
the API will be less than a XML-RPC proxy + FCP encoder + FCP decoder
(in the node). Essentially, the only effect of exposing a plugin API is
that the XML-RPC and FProxy code can skip the FCP encoding and decoding.
To me this sounds like a better situation for all concerned.
Ian.
PGP signature
