On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Paul Davis wrote: > >If I remember correctly http goes both ways. Also its not really a lot > >of baggage - you can f.i. structure your plugin stuff in the filesystem > >tree, so a GET parameters/factor[.html] would just get you a "1.233" > >f.i., and PUT (or was it PUSH?) of the same sort sets the value. > >Note again, using an existing protocol helps development and debugging > >and probably interoperability. > > actually, i can tell you from experience that it doesn't. there are 2 > reasons: > > 1) HTTP is stateless > this has been widely criticized, and widely praised. > its already apparent that the LCP protocol cannot > be stateless
I dont see this is a problem. > 2) the hard part of handling protocols is not implementing > formatting, delivery + parsing of messages. its > integrating the handling of i/o into the structure > of the client+server. no HTTP library that i've seen > will help with that. in fact, no protocol library > of any kind that i've seen helps with that. > > >Anyone knows another simple standard protocol that can be used? > > i don't understand. why do you want to use a generic, essentially > complex protocol to replace a specific, extremely simple one? I dont want to use a complex protocol (http isnt complex) - and using an existing protocol allows you to use existing clients/servers that are known to work to debug your implementation (and in case of http you even get some GUI stuff for free). But well - I dont have time to implement it, so you're again more fast at coding than we in discussing. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/ The GLAME Project: http://www.glame.de/
