-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I'm convinceable--I really am, but I'm making a big deal about it > because I've written a lot of notwork protocol code and I know what > makes it easy and what makes it complex. OK, I understand that you > want to put a "presentation" layer in between the data model and the > serialization method. If there's a benefit to that layer, give me > an example of its use--otherwise why not just eliminate it entirely?
Sorry, Lee, but I'm not buying the "I've written a lot of code thus I am my experience makes my ideas (or resistance to them) right" We're not doing anything to impair complexity. I demonstrated a subtly typed protocol, that appears untyped, is easy to read and parse, and yet provides type independance. Pros: Easy serialization, simpler application code, zero-protocol-knowledge gateways, filters, etc. Cons: A couple of extra bytes in the stream, the *OPTION* of having to parse them differently (you can choose to keep them in strings just as easily). One thing you've failed to counter is the fact that *parsing* has to happen somewhere anyway. If the app needs an integer, it has to parse as an integer, either during operation (several times even) or by the presentation layer. It still happens. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5H1VbpXyM95IyRhURAoJlAJ0a2xg134+Y4tnw0zDwAqUoaCToGQCglWzk p/ABuZhu86TVuLv5f+EQi5Q= =bRrs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
