On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 07:17:14PM -0500, Brandon wrote: > > > My point being that... now we have FNPClient, FCPClient, and even > > InternalClient which I'm ready to commit to the experimental branch. > > Combine that with the evolution of the protocol, and I am finding that > > the old semantics just don't _quite_ make sense anymore. > > I'm happy with whatever changes you want to make to Client as long as you > promise to always keep SimplifiedClient up to date and working in both > streaming and non-streaming modes (which relates very much to the event > model). So as long as you don't commit until you've tested > SimplifiedClient, I say go for it. After thoughtfully announcing such > changes to the list, of course. :-)
Well, Brandon, I will do my best :) But you are the author of SimplifiedClient after all.. can you comment on whether SimplifiedClient would be affected by my proposed changes to the client events? Of course I realize it would need to be tweaked if we dispensed with the TRANSFERRING Request state. -- # tavin cole # # "The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, # a continual flight from wonder." # - Albert Einstein _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl >From - Thu May 3 00:17:22 2001 Return-Path: <devl-admin at freenetproject.org> Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (postfix@[4.18.42.11]) by funky.danky.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA12366 for <danello at danky.com>; Wed, 2 May 2001 20:19:13 -0400 Received: from hawk.freenetproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hawk.freenetproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
