-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > anything to do with the transport itself. > > That depends on what you define as a "message". To me, a message is > nothing more or less than a FieldSet, with an optional Data. The > protocol is two things: a method of serializing messages, and a set > of behviors for nodes sending and receiving them. Those behaviors > are defined in terms of a message being a set of named fields and > optional data. That's the nature of packet-switching: the data > itself contains info about where it goes and what to do with it. No, a protocol is only the set of behaviors for nodes sending and receiving messages. The method of serialization is independant of a protocol. Tying these together is bad.
> > If there's some convincing _real use_ for serializing messages > differently, I'd like to hear it. I haven't yet. "Performance" > doesn't wash. Memory use doesn't wash. Gateways. > > You simply can't ignore the phenomenal success of untyped text- > based protocols like SMTP, NNTP, IMAP, HTTP, etc. for being flexible, > robust, expandable, reliable, and easy to code and debug. Years of > hard experience in successful Internet protocols should not be cast > aside without a damned good reason. How about tunneling over very slow links? How about avoiding firewalls? All of these applications should be capable of being written without understanding the protocol (and thus the definitions of each field). They can't be if you impose this "Typing is defined as understanding the fieldname". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5HCuXpXyM95IyRhURAoAKAJwLcXA+58jnpnEQ7zfWpU4IbCvY+gCeIogI 3t3bLsFO9XnBTHxG3EM67js= =znEm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
