I answered to this in my mail from 2:15pm. It was only my idea to add
a new message because _I_ thought it is easier for clients this way.
It is no problem to change the GetFailed message and to provide a
"reason=removed" to the client.
We just need a decision and I will make the changes. Lets wait until
some more people joined the discussion and voted for the one or the
other :)
PS: imho a GetFailed for removal of a request is'nt really correct,
because nothing failed. See my comments about ambiguities in my before
message. But to keep the overall number of messages low it could make
sense to do it this way.
On 2/2/07, Jerome Flesch <jflesch at nerim.net> wrote:
> 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 ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
