On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 07:16:30PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 10:05:46PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote: > > Read the list archives. > > Don't you think I have anything better to do ;-)
Well, I can see how any signals on this list might get lost.. ;'p > > Ok, I'll do anything for our favorite rock star.. > > oh dear, this is going to stick isn't it. Yea, even *I* picked it up, and I don't even know what you look like ;) > > Yes, Ian, there's already a simple plug-in API in 0.4 that allows the > > plug-ins to use an internal implementation of the Client API in exactly > > the same way as someone using the Client library to do FCP or FNP. > > I know. There was much more to my comment than that. I am suggesting > that FProxy, FCP, and XML-RPC are rewritten to work with that library, > and probably that the command-line clients are rewritten to speak FCP > (some people are doing this already). Well, yes fproxy should absolutely be rewritten to use the InternalClient. I don't really see how FCP needs to change. The node implements it using its internal states, but someone using FCP from a separate JVM would use FCPClient, which shares the same API as FNPClient and InternalClient. If the code were running within the node, it would of course use InternalClient instead. You can try to convince Brandon to write an XMLRPCClient layer around his stuff :) So you see, the ClientFactory/Client/Request interfaces _are_ the definitive standard API you're talking about for Java. If someone wants their FNP speaking Java client to switch to FCP all they need to do is change the new FNPClient(core, target) for a new FCPClient(target). -- # tavin cole # # "The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, # a continual flight from wonder." # - Albert Einstein _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
