[freenet-dev] New FCP2 messages

[Matthew Toseland]

On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 09:38:47PM +0100, bbackde at googlemail.com wrote:
> If FCP2 want to provide clients an easy access, then the following
> changes are needed:
> 
> Answer to a ModifyPersistentRequest should not be a new
> Persistent<blah> with all values, but a ModifiedPersistentRequest
> message with only the changed values. Otherwise the client has to do
> all syncing and searching for really changed values.

I don't get this. Why not just have a Persistent<blah> ? Surely less
messages is the simpler solution?
> 
> Answer to a RemovePersistentRequest should be a
> RemovedPersistentRequest, this is a clear answer to the request and
> clients don't need to do much investigation here.

Or a GetFailed with Removed=true.
> 
> Its easy to implement this in the node and I offer to do the changes
> and to document them in the wiki. Existing clients are not affected.

By all means.
> 
> Please discuss this, and with your answer provide an explanation WHY
> you recommendation is better then the given ones, thanks.
> 
> rgds, bback.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20070205/249ebae3/attachment.pgp