> Why not a message type "Control"? Obviously, it would only accept > things like Control.Shutdown if the message had a correct password or > some other authentication, but it might be handy for other things as > well (client aborts, configuration, etc.)
I like this idea. It uses the existing format and is client-friendly and flexible and extensible. There is the problem of the vulnerability of making your node controllable over the network. I mean yes, it would be neat to control your node through Freenet. However, you could have people messing with it untracably. This is easily fixed, however, by making this message only accept commands from registered sources. So if you run your client on tcp/localhost:19115, you can configure your node to only accept connections from that address. We certainly don't want to use a command protocol which can't be used by graphical interfaces. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
