Ok, but why a new command ? Why not just another error code ? (xx =
cancelled by user ; yy = cancelled and removed by user)
Anyway, as long as the GetFailed command is still sent, it won't break
my implementation. I'm just asking that by curiosity.
2007/2/2, bbackde at googlemail.com <bbackde at googlemail.com>:
> imho cancel means both: request stopped for now, or request removed.
> Due to extendability of the protocol the parameters should be clear,
> so the answer for a RemovePersistentRequest should be something with
> the word "removed", same as requested. We should not start to
> introduce such ambiguities in the early state of 0.7.
>
> On 2/2/07, Jerome Flesch <jflesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since there is no cancel command in FCP, I don't see what "cancelled
> > by user" can mean except that the user removed it ?
> >
> >
> > 2007/2/2, bbackde at googlemail.com <bbackde at googlemail.com>:
> > > Toad wrote:
> > > > GetFailed reason=Cancelled ? Admittedly this doesn't tell you for
> > > > certain that it has been removed... Hmm...
> > >
> > > So either a new message, or a new parameter reason=Removed would give
> > > a clear statement that the request was removed. Whereas the new
> > > message makes it easier for clients to handle the removed request,
> > > otherwise you have to do all inside the handler for GetFailed. My 2
> > > cents....
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/2/07, bbackde at googlemail.com <bbackde at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Did you follow the thread on tech yesterday? Thats why I added a new
> > > > msg....no problem to change it again.
> > > >
> > > > On 2/2/07, Jerome Flesch <jflesch at nerim.net> wrote:
> > > > > "new message PersistentRequestRemoved" ? I'm a little bit curious
> > > > > about this new message:
> > > > > Wasn't the node supposed to send a GetFailed ("cancelled by user")
> > > > > when a request was removed ? If yes, what is the goal of this new
> > > > > message ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
