On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 02:50:51PM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> 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.
Or a Removed=true|false flag.
>
> 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 ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20070203/ad10b2da/attachment.pgp>
