> We need to think twice before implementing difficult and complicated > protocols. HTTP support is easy to implement and widely usable, so that > was a good choice. I support a simple binary protocol that client writers > can use. But beyond that, I'm not sure.
Well, with a pluggable architecture and a standard message format we should be able to support many different modes of transmission. From a client perspective, http makes sense to me and xml over http, whether SOAP or not, also makes sense. That's not to say, however, that someone writing a client couldn't use another method if he/she chooses. Will _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
