On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 02:52:16PM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > > > > I don't see why this is a problem; he has to parse it when he submits > > the request in the first place, and/or when he connects to the global > > queue after starting up, so the code is only slightly different for > > updating it. > > Just for the records: the difference is that in the first time we see > a PersistentBlah we create a new object for it in our client list. If > we see it a second time, then we have to compare our own values > against the values in the second PersistentBlah and figure out IF and > WHAT changed. If nothing changed then we don't have to update the gui > item (which is expensive, redraw, ...). A ModifiedPersistentRequest > could be applied without further checks, because something really > changed.
I suppose. But if you lose your connection then you will get a bunch of PersistentBlah's again; you would wipe your internal copy of the queue when you lose connection to the node? I'm still not convinced it's simpler to have more messages. > > At the end this would allow to handle each PersistentBlah as > introduction for new items. > > But this was just for the records, we need a decision. Because I can't > add further details to my point of view to convince you I tend to > implement what you proposed, because its 'your' code :) Input from other client authors would be useful. Jflesh? -------------- 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/20070205/84f1aaf8/attachment.pgp>
