That's a concern a couple of people have expressed internally - it would be good if there was some thought put into the c/s protocol, rather than just standardising on whatever hack was already there.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:39, James Purser <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 11:31 +1100, Anthony Baxter wrote: > > Bear in mind it's not going to be an "official" client/server > > protocol. Just less bad than the current one. > > > > Understood, however for the moment, it's the defacto standard (being the > only client/server protocol in operational existance :)), so any > improvement is good news. > > > -- > James Purser > Collaborynth > http://collaborynth.com.au > Mob: +61 406 576 553 > Skype: purserj1977 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/purserj > > > > > -- Anthony Baxter, [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" 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/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
