On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 09:38:47PM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > If FCP2 want to provide clients an easy access, then the following > changes are needed: > > Answer to a ModifyPersistentRequest should not be a new > Persistent<blah> with all values, but a ModifiedPersistentRequest > message with only the changed values. Otherwise the client has to do > all syncing and searching for really changed values.
I don't get this. Why not just have a Persistent<blah> ? Surely less messages is the simpler solution? > > Answer to a RemovePersistentRequest should be a > RemovedPersistentRequest, this is a clear answer to the request and > clients don't need to do much investigation here. Or a GetFailed with Removed=true. > > Its easy to implement this in the node and I offer to do the changes > and to document them in the wiki. Existing clients are not affected. By all means. > > Please discuss this, and with your answer provide an explanation WHY > you recommendation is better then the given ones, thanks. > > rgds, bback. -------------- 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/20070205/249ebae3/attachment.pgp>
