On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, "Mark J. Roberts" <mjr at statesmean.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Brandon wrote: > > > I totally agree with the point that a massively bloated library is less > > good than a simple library. That's why I like XML-RPC. It's the simplest > > thing available and will work fine for our purposes. > > It's superior if you want to write Freenet libraries in scripting > languages that make it hard to implement something like LocalServ. But for > C, C++, and Java, it only makes things harder, IMHO. It's certainly harder to write an XML-RPC parser than a binary protocol parser. But that's not an issue, because XML-RPC parsers already exist. This is the idea behind using a standard. > Most clients will use a Freenet library that handles higher-level > stuff like redirects automatically, and will never even see any > XML. But if you think that implementing client libraries in weird > scripting languages is important, then using a standard protocol is > a good choice. Using a standard protocol is a good choice either way, because it means that the freenet library will be easier to implement. Having implemented a freenet library myself, I can say this with some amount of certainty. Using an easy-to-implement protocol does *not* win over using an already-implemented protocol, particularly if the already-implemented protocol has advantages like interoperability with existing tools and environments. -S _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
