> Hrmm. I still think that someone who's writing a MP3 player would be more > likely to add support for a simple protocol than link some weird Freenet > library into their program to communicate using a complex protocol, > considering code bloat and all. A simple binary protocol should be decided > upon and implemented for this reason, IMHO.
What you're suggesting is having them link some weird Freenet library into their program instead of linking to a standard library and using a well documented, standard API which everyone else is using already. > Although the whole situation disturbs me somewhat. This shit could quickly > get completely out of control, when a Freenet node needs to support CORBA, > XML, SOAP, HTTP, FNP, FTP, IRC, and whatever other buzzword is in style. We just need to decide on an support one simple standard protocol. It's just a matter of which one. > 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. By using SOAP, CORBA, etc., we DON'T implement a protocol at all. That's the point. All of the arguements you're making are exactly my arguements for using something like SOAP instead of making up our own protocol. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
