On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 11:52:37PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This new flag introduces more ambiguousness for clients. > > I think it should either be a GetFailed with reason=Removed (I don't > like this one because the get didn't actually fail, but this depends > on the definition of 'fail'), or a new message > PersistentRequestRemoved. With a new message existing clients also > have no problem because they must ignore the message and the behavior > of fcp2 doesn't change at all for them.
Well internally it's because it was cancelled; that's the failure code. There is just a side-effect which is that it is no longer on the queue. So I think a flag would be good. Existing clients should ignore any fields within a message that they don't recognize. > > On 2/3/07, NextGen$ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-03 19:23:17]: > > > > > Yeah this is the 3rd possibility *g*. Who will decide this now? > > > > > > > > > On 2/3/07, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 02:50:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I answered to this in my mail from 2:15pm. It was only my idea to add > > > > > a new message because _I_ thought it is easier for clients this way. > > > > > It is no problem to change the GetFailed message and to provide a > > > > > "reason=removed" to the client. > > > > > > > > Or a Removed=true|false flag. > > > > I would be in favor of the flag solution. > > _______________________________________________ > > Devl mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > [email protected] > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
