On Jul 8, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Peter Hosey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2011, at 07:14:06, Chris @ fullphat wrote: >> On Jul 7, 8:20 pm, Peter Hosey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Jul 7, 2011, at 12:12:01, Neal Horman wrote: >>> >>>> Interesting that it is a GfW spec. >>> >>> GfW hosts it, but it was jointly developed between us and them, with >>> developers of all the other notification systems of the time also present >>> (they were welcome to pipe up but ended up not saying much). >> >> That's generally true but we (Snarl) had our own TCP-based protocol in place >> at the time and were working on support for Growl's UDP implementation. We >> proposed our implementation (SNP) and were quite strongly shouted down by >> the Growl team, hence we retreated to a safe distance. > > What? I searched my mail archive and couldn't find anything about SNP. When > and where was this? > I don't remember this either. >> My personal take is that GNTP is still a rather bloated protocol, being >> based around a mime format rather than something more current such as XML. > > My opinion at the time was that XML would have been more bloated, > particularly for visually reading; I proposed using or emulating MIME so that > it would be simpler, not more complex. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Growl Discuss" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
