[freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7

[Matthew Toseland]

No. 0.7 is a major change. The fundamentals will be similar but there
are some significant changes:
- We no longer create one connection for every request. We multiplex.
  This is what the identifiers are for.
- Requests do not necessarily start immediately. They can be queued by
  the node. If the client asks for a status update it can get one; if
  the client kills the connection and tries again (which is very common
  in 0.5 clients), it will probably be coalesced with the old request.
- Splitfiles are handled more or less transparently by the node. You
  can have as much status information as you want, or as little, but you
  do not have to (and cannot easily) parse the metadata and do the
  splitfile decode yourself. The metadata itself is binary in any case,
  and may be hierarchical (i.e. a splitfile manifest might not fit in
  one 32kB block), and anything over 32kB will need to be split (or at
  least gzipped transparently).

On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 08:52:15AM -0400, Rowland wrote:
> Now this will be backward compatible, right?
> 
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:04, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Sorry, there isn't much solid documentation yet. I will write something
> > up soon as there have been several requests.
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:35:22PM -0700, Vanessa wrote:
> > > Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I
> > > might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something
> > > that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things
> > > API related will progress?
> > > 
> > > Thank you
> > > 
> > > "It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about
> > > what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be
> > > like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess.
> > > 
> > > Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that
> > > will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly
> > > isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope."
> -- 
> ---
> My skills and contact info: http://www.blcss.com/contactme.php
> Public Freenet gateway: http://www.blcss.com/fr.pl
> 
> 
> ___
> Support mailing list
> Support at freenetproject.org
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
> Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: 

Re: [freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7

[Matthew Toseland]

No. 0.7 is a major change. The fundamentals will be similar but there
are some significant changes:
- We no longer create one connection for every request. We multiplex.
  This is what the identifiers are for.
- Requests do not necessarily start immediately. They can be queued by
  the node. If the client asks for a status update it can get one; if
  the client kills the connection and tries again (which is very common
  in 0.5 clients), it will probably be coalesced with the old request.
- Splitfiles are handled more or less transparently by the node. You
  can have as much status information as you want, or as little, but you
  do not have to (and cannot easily) parse the metadata and do the
  splitfile decode yourself. The metadata itself is binary in any case,
  and may be hierarchical (i.e. a splitfile manifest might not fit in
  one 32kB block), and anything over 32kB will need to be split (or at
  least gzipped transparently).

On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 08:52:15AM -0400, Rowland wrote:
> Now this will be backward compatible, right?
> 
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:04, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Sorry, there isn't much solid documentation yet. I will write something
> > up soon as there have been several requests.
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:35:22PM -0700, Vanessa wrote:
> > > Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I
> > > might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something
> > > that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things
> > > API related will progress?
> > > 
> > > Thank you
> > > 
> > > "It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about
> > > what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be
> > > like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess.
> > > 
> > > Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that
> > > will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly
> > > isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope."
> -- 
> ---
> My skills and contact info: http://www.blcss.com/contactme.php
> Public Freenet gateway: http://www.blcss.com/fr.pl
> 
> 
> ___
> Support mailing list
> Support@freenetproject.org
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
> Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
> Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7

[Rowland]

Now this will be backward compatible, right?

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:04, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Sorry, there isn't much solid documentation yet. I will write something
> up soon as there have been several requests.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:35:22PM -0700, Vanessa wrote:
> > Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I
> > might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something
> > that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things
> > API related will progress?
> > 
> > Thank you
> > 
> > "It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about
> > what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be
> > like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess.
> > 
> > Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that
> > will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly
> > isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope."
-- 
---
My skills and contact info: http://www.blcss.com/contactme.php
Public Freenet gateway: http://www.blcss.com/fr.pl

Re: [freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7

[Rowland]

Now this will be backward compatible, right?

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:04, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Sorry, there isn't much solid documentation yet. I will write something
> up soon as there have been several requests.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:35:22PM -0700, Vanessa wrote:
> > Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I
> > might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something
> > that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things
> > API related will progress?
> > 
> > Thank you
> > 
> > "It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about
> > what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be
> > like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess.
> > 
> > Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that
> > will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly
> > isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope."
-- 
---
My skills and contact info: http://www.blcss.com/contactme.php
Public Freenet gateway: http://www.blcss.com/fr.pl


___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7

[Matthew Toseland]

Sorry, there isn't much solid documentation yet. I will write something
up soon as there have been several requests.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:35:22PM -0700, Vanessa wrote:
> Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I
> might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something
> that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things
> API related will progress?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> "It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about
> what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be
> like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess.
> 
> Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that
> will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly
> isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope."
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: 

Re: [freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7

[Matthew Toseland]

Sorry, there isn't much solid documentation yet. I will write something
up soon as there have been several requests.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 02:35:22PM -0700, Vanessa wrote:
> Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I
> might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something
> that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things
> API related will progress?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> "It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about
> what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be
> like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess.
> 
> Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that
> will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly
> isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope."
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7

[Vanessa]

Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I
might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something
that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things
API related will progress?

Thank you

"It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about
what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be
like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess.

Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that
will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly
isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope."
-- 
  Vanessa
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be

___
Support mailing list
Support@freenetproject.org
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[freenet-support] rfi: FCP API for 0.7

[Vanessa]

Anything you can say on this or provide me with some pointers to where I
might be able to find some answers? Not necessarily specs, but something
that will give a bit of confidence things will be allright or how things
API related will progress?

Thank you

"It would be nice indeed and a positive sign if something was said about
what to expect on the API. It will not be something esoteric, it will be
like what it is now as seen from a functional level, I guess.

Maybe the messages being exchanged will have a different format but that
will not cause much trouble. Just make sure the FCP parts are properly
isolated and the distance will be relatively short, I hope."
-- 
  Vanessa
  vanessavasquez at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be