On Thursday 20 March 2008 19:05, freenetwork at web.de wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > We are not going to make radical changes to FCP at this point. Backward > > compatibility may suck, but it's necessary when we have a number of working > > and widely used clients. Minor changes are however of interest - if they are > > justified. > > > My wishlist for FCP3: > > * node generated message IDs to ensure true uniqeness and unguessability > of node-IDs to protect different FCP client from another
If the client wants to store an ID. What if it doesn't? More complexity for little gain. > * usage of JSON [1] for the messages. This is standardized and easily > parseable. Another *great* feat is it's easy to convert a JSON-message > into a Java bean and vice versa [2], skipping the whole manual parsing > of fields altogether and concentrating on the work to do. If it's java-specific it's useless, you can always steal the code you need from Fred (as jSite does). > > If requested, I can provide elaborate snippets how to use the beanifying. > > > [1] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON > http://json.org/ (notice all the JSON-libraries freely available) > > [2] > http://json-lib.sourceforge.net/index.html (there are more) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080320/e837b274/attachment.pgp>
