On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Brandon wrote: > > What are your (collective) thoughts regarding creating a SOAP adapter to > > allow Freenet nodes to reside and operate behind firewalls by using port 80 > > and XML encapsulation? > > > > The benefit would be that freenet could communicate over port 80 via XML > > which is almost always permitted from a firewall/security standpoint. > > A SOAP (or XML-RPC, which is way more simple) adapter would be useful as > the infamous client protocol since we don't have to write a client > protocol, just expose an API.
Ooohhh! Client protocols! Adam and I were just talking about that. I'd like a slightly modified version of Whiterose's binary protocol, which goes like: 1) Client sends command (get or put) to server as uint. 2) Server replies with status (done, failed, timeout, etc.) as uint. Now, if success: 3) Server sends metadata length as uint. 4) Server sends metadata. 5) Server sends data length as uint. 6) Server sends data. 7) Server sends "done" status as uint just to make sure. This can be implemented much more quickly than a text-based, base64-encoded protocol, which is why I like it. > For node communication, though, I fear it would be too slow. Port 80 > tunneling doesn't usually require the protocol be XML, so any form of HTTP > encapsulation should be fine, in which case I would recommend that we just > use FNP over HTTP. Aren't there generic ways to tunnel through a firewall though? I don't know much about the issue. -- Mark Roberts mjr at statesmean.com _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
