On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 11:56 +1100, Brett Nash wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I still don't like right of refusal.  In particular mandatory filters
> > > > are pointless, to `implement' a mandatory filter I just need to set the
> > > > flag, and then refuse to allow it when asked.  
> > 
> > There are no "mandatory" filters, unless I misunderstand what you are 
> > getting 
> > at.
> 
> Probably bad terminology.  I thought there were going to be filters that
> all servers must implement:
>       - String padding
>       - Compression maybe[?]

I had totally forgotten about this. Maybe we should record this
somewhere other then your brain and the mail achieves?

> It seems strange to require them, but be able to always refuse them.
> Which is essentially my point.  

But not all filters are "implementation required".

<snip>

> > Why should a filter be flagged "can't be refused"? I can't think of any 
> > filter 
> > that would need that. The documentation already says not to pipeline around 
> > the setfilter and reply frames.
> 
> [/me notes that yes it does, and it's annoying in a client which
> pipelines _everything_]

There is no way to pipeline past the reply. Many filter require
negotiation (such as the TLS/SSL filter), you can't send any more
packets until that has finished.

> > Reasons that a server could refuse a filter set:
> >  - one or more is not supported (could separate temporary and permanent)
> >  - two (or more) conflict
> >  - client's implementation is known to be incorrect
> 
> Personally I'd say for the last case:
>       - Let the client be incorrect, fix it in the client.  Work arounds for
> other bugs suck... this is one area open source can get advantage ;-)

True, but when we have a 10,000 users it will take time for everyone to
get new versions. During that period it would be good for updated
servers to be able too refuse the client.

<snip> 
> > I note the only two filters defined so far is the string padding filter and 
> > the SSL/TLS filter. The string padding filter is implemented in 
> > tpserver-cpp. 
> > About 80% of the work for the SSL filter has been done as well, but it's 
> > not 
> > currently on my todo list to finish.
> 
> Once the other server starts to support padding, I'll move to padding.
> Which means my client will work correctly on ARM ;-) 

It has to support TP04 first :). The "other" server has no support for
TP04 at all.

Tim 'Mithro' Ansell

_______________________________________________
tp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.thousandparsec.net/tp/mailman.php/listinfo/tp-devel

Reply via email to