>From "Nick Lee" <nlee64 at home.com> >> What benefit does SOAP have not provided by existing client interfaces to >> Freenet? >> > >I knew this one is coming ... =) > >... and I know I don't have an answer for it, except it will almost >certainly be a more popular standard than XML-RPC (and probably FCP =). With >only "closed" communication, "standard" isn't really a benefit anyway, >especially if something's already in place. In other words, I really don't >have an answer for Ben's question. And I have no objection against staying >with FCP and XML-RPC. > >I suggested WSDL/SOAP just to see what the reaction is from the Freenet >community. For the purpose of PCOS, it really doesn't matter what protocol I >use. Since the reaction isn't all that good, I guess I'll just have to >choose between FCP and XML-RPC.
You can go ahead and implement a SOAP interface on top of FCP or XML-RPC (or fproxy, for that matter), if that's what you want to use for your project. Other SOAP hackers, if any, would probably appreciate it. >And I guess Ben misunderstood what I meant ... >> Remote access to Freenet really isn't meaningful, you access >> Freenet remotely >> by running a node. >What if you access Freenet remotely WITHOUT running a node? That's what I >meant by remote access, which I argued is bad for Freenet, which Brandon >seemed to agree with ... Now, some reply to Brandon ... You could, there's just no reason to. It would be like, for example, using X or NT Terminal to run a browser on the http server you're accessing. Unless you have to do it for compatibility or debugging reasons or something, it would be pointless (and slow). -- Benjamin Coates _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
